Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802SEC] RE: Draft SOW for P&P revision support from SA




I am inclined to agree with Tony's comments, with the exception that I'm
not sure that 3 cycles will be adequate, given the amount of debate that
seems to go into *any* proposed change to the P&P and the need to assure
that there are not "unintended consequences."  (If it takes a bit
longer, I guess I feel "So be it, better to get it right.")

Carl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org 
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of 
> Tony Jeffree
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 4:49 AM
> To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] RE: Draft SOW for P&P revision support from SA
> 
> 
> 
> Mat -
> 
> I seriously doubt your/our ability to maintain any kind of 
> discipline with 
> regard to this two-stage process (first, generating the 
> "superset", then 
> streamlining the superset); it just won't work out that way 
> in practice, 
> because everyone will want to hack the superset the first 
> time around. So I 
> believe that the two stage process will closely follow the 
> military adage 
> that no plan survives contact with the enemy.
> 
> Given the above, I would suggest we accept the inevitable & 
> make it a one 
> stage process (which may involve more than one ballot of 
> course), and go 
> for as much of the 2nd stage streamlining as possible in the 
> first balloted 
> draft. That way, the purpose of the ballot(s) would be to 
> comment on what 
> we want the final shape of the document to be, rather than 
> what I believe 
> will be a rather artificial first ballot even if we can be 
> persuaded to 
> stay "on topic".
> 
> I would agree with Howard that 2 cycles is a bit on the 
> aggressive side, 
> and would suggest 3 is about right.
> 
> Regards,
> Tony
> 
> At 04:17 19/02/2004, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
> 
> >Hi Everyone,
> >
> >I received little comment on this SOW.  The only comments I received 
> >were
> >from Howard Frazier. (Thank you Howard for the very useful 
> >comments).  Howard's main point was that rather than completing the 
> >process in 2 plenary cycles, I should slow the process down 
> a bit to allow 
> >more time for comment by the EC.  I agree with Howard point, 
> and started 
> >recrafting the SOW to take 3 plenary cycles to complete 
> based on Howard 
> >guidance.  The new process would first ballot a draft which 
> aligns the 
> >LMSC P&P with the model P&P, both in format and content.  
> That is it would 
> >add anything from the model P&P that ours is currently missing and 
> >reformat our document while maintaining it's content.  
> Later, a second 
> >ballot would be held on additional changes to streamline our 
> P&P, etc. The 
> >one issue I have with this is that we really should wait for 
> the first 
> >ballot to compete before  drafting the "streamlined" the 
> P&P.  By this I 
> >mean removing any content that is already covered in or conflicts!
> >   with other documents with precedence over our own.  If we 
> wait for the 
> > first ballot to complete before editing, it means we can't 
> initiate the 
> > second ballot until the following plenary.  Thus it will 
> take 4 plenary 
> > cycle to compete the project.  This seems a bit much to me, 
> but to do 
> > otherwise would require editing the second draft while the 
> first one is 
> > still being balloted.  I'm not sure this is a good idea, so 
> I want to 
> > poll the EC.
> >
> >How long should the P&P update process take?  2 cycles, 3 
> cycles or 4 
> >cycles?
> >
> >Please let me know your opinions.
> >
> >I plan to provide the draft document I already circulated to the EC
> >informally to SA (with clear indication that it is not an 
> 802 approved 
> >document and is purely for comment) so that I can get their 
> inputs as 
> >well. I will also inform them of Howard suggestions.   I 
> will do this all 
> >tomorrow night unless I hear anyone on the EC object prior 
> to that time.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Mat
> >
> >Matthew Sherman, PhD
> >Senior Member Technical Staff
> >BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
> >Office: +1 973.633.6344
> >email:  matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
> >
> >
> > >  -----Original Message-----
> > > From:         Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> > > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:04 PM
> > > To:   stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> > > Subject:      Draft SOW for P&P revision support from SA
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > Per Paul's request I have been working on a Statement of 
> Work for SA
> > support in updating the LMSC Policy and Procedures.  The 
> primary goal 
> > is
> > get our P&P reformatted along the lines of the model P&P, 
> make sure it 
> > doesn't have any holes or fatal conflicts with documents having 
> > precedence over our own, and arrange for possible ongoing 
> support to 
> > clear the back log of the many P&P changes people want to try.
> > >
> > > The attached document is a draft, and I don't anticipate final 
> > > approval
> > of anything prior to the March meeting.  However, I would 
> like to pass
> > something to the SA for comment well prior to the March 
> meeting, so that 
> > hopefully a full consensus can be reached between us and SA 
> at the March 
> > meeting.  If you have any critical comments, please get 
> them to me within 
> > the next week so I can incorporate you comments into this 
> document before 
> > I "formally" informally pass it to the SA to comment on.  I suppose 
> > posting the document on this reflector makes them aware of 
> it anyway.
> > >
> > > Looking forward to your comments.
> > >
> > > Thanks and Regards,
> > >
> > > Mat
> > >  << File: Draft 4.0 Statement of Work for SA PP Support.doc >> 
> > > Matthew Sherman, PhD Senior Member Technical Staff
> > > BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
> > > Office: +1 973.633.6344
> > > email:  matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>