RE: [802SEC] Draft update for LMSC P&P as of 7/25/03
Mat-
At 08:54 AM 10/13/2003 -0400, mjsherman@research.att.com wrote:
Geoff,
Thanks for the inputs. I will double check everything you have
mentioned. But remember at this point it is an editorial
exercise. I have to stick to the approved text. If you want
changes that aren t in the approved text, that can be done, but requires
another ballot
L
I will leave that to a decision of the Rules Group on Sunday night.
Talk to you
soon,
Mat
Geoff
Matthew
Sherman
Vice
Chair, IEEE 802
Technology
Consultant
Communications
Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson
[mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 12:23 AM
To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Draft update for LMSC P&P as of
7/25/03
Mat-
Re: The appeals process
1) re:
3.7 Appeal and complaint process
Every attempt should be made to
resolve concerns informally, since it is recognized that a formal appeals
process has a tendency to negatively, and sometimes permanently, affect
the goodwill and cooperative relationships between and among persons.
It isn't "that a formal appeals process has a tendency to
negatively, and sometimes permanently, affect...goodwill"
It isn't the process that affects goodwill.
It is either the "appeal" or the "exercise of the appeals
process" that does the deed.
2)
re: 3.7.3
There is no parallel requirement that the appellee brief be copied to the
appellant.
3)
re: 3.7.4
If the parties to the appeal cannot agree on an appeals panel within a
reasonable amount of time, the whole matter shall be referred to the full
EC for Consideration.
I don't know what this means. does it mean that the entire EC is the
appeals panel or does it mean that the entire EC considers whether to
kick it up to the SAB or ???
This should be pretty straight-forward. There should be a standing list
of people in the appeals pool and any time there is a threat of an appeal
"somebody" (who?) should cross off the disqualified members of
the pool.
Also, it doesn't say how the chair of the panel is chosen. That needs to
be specified.
I can think of 2 reasonable possibilities
a) The
party that is acceptable to each side
b) That it
is the right of the EC Chair to choose.
4)
re: 3.7.5
The rules contained in the current edition of Robert s Rules of Order
Newly Revised (latest edition) shall apply to questions of parliamentary
procedure for the hearing not covered herein.
should be:
The appeals panel chair shall consult rules contained in the current
edition of Robert s Rules of Order Newly Revised (latest edition) for
questions of parliamentary procedure for the hearing not covered
herein.
5)
re: 3.7.6
....with reasons there for,
should be:
....with reasons therefore,
and also a/b/c makes no mention of disposition of whatever requests were
made for remedial action.
6) re: 3.7.7
There seems to be no requirement that if there is a request for a
rehearing that there be some rationale required to justify the
rehearing.
Cheers,
Geoff
At 11:05 PM 10/12/2003 -0400, mjsherman@research.att.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Sorry things have taken so long but I ve been otherwise occupied
lately.
Attached please find a draft of the LMSC P&P which includes all
revisions approved as of 7/25/03. It is redlined to highlight the
changes. Please feel free to examine it and identify any errors in the
editing you may find to me. I plan to release the final version of
this document in about 2 weeks.
Thanks,
Mat
Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
Draft_LMSC_P&P_-_July_2003_R0.pdf