Re: [802SEC] +++802 EC Motion+++ LMSC request to BoG for improving CAG procedures
Paul,
The wording is a bit sloppy in places and unless improved, will likely
require some explanation when presented to the BoG, but I vote APPROVE.
wlq
> Paul Nikolich wrote:
>
> Dear EC members,
>
> This is an EC email ballot to make a determination on the below EC
> motion regarding a request to the IEEE SA BoG for improving IEEE SA
> Corporate Advisory Group procedures.
>
> This is an urgent matter, as the IEEE SA BoG is meeting the morning of
> Feb 27 to discuss the matter and I want to have an EC decision
> completed before then. I will be present at the BoG meeting.
>
> Since this is an urgent matter and the topic has been available for
> review and comment on the EC reflector since Feb 11 (see
> http://www.ieee802.org/secmail/msg04887.html for background material),
> I am setting the duration of the ballot to close the earlier of 9PM
> EST Feb 25th (6 days) or within 24 hours after every member of the EC
> has cast a definitive vote (approve, disapprove or abstain).
>
> Please direct your responses to the EC reflector with a CC directly to
> me (p.nikolich@ieee.org).
>
> Regards,
>
> - Paul Nikolich
>
> Moved: Bob Grow, Second: Tony Jeffree
>
> The IEEE 802 LAN/MAN standards committee (LMSC) requests the IEEE-SA
> Board of Governors take action to protect the value of IEEE-SA as a
> standards development organization by requiring proper IEEE-SA,
> Corporate Advisory Group (CAG) and working group procedures that:
>
> 1. allow CAG standards sponsorship for truly new standards activities
> that are outside the scope of existing working groups;
>
> 2. allow CAG standards sponsorship for new standards that are not
> effectively amendments to existing standards or projects of active
> working groups;
>
> 3. recognize that working groups must make selections between
> technical alternatives, and prevent the CAG from becoming a mechanism
> that can be used for undermining the decision making process of
> working groups by sponsoring competing projects to standards and
> projects of those working groups;
>
> 4. discriminate between disinterest in a proposed standards project
> and recognize an established working group's position that a proposed
> standards project is within its area of work and that the proposed
> project should not be approved.