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
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>