| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
All,
Thanks to everyone who participated in this ballot. Your time and effort are very much appreciated. As previously announced, there will be a comment resolution session tomorrow (1/7). The ballot results and comments are provided below, and will be a topic of the telecon tomorrow. Please let me know if you see any errors in the material below.
Regards,
Mat
Voters DNV DIS APP ABS Comments Provided?
---------------------------------------------------------
00 Paul Nikolich APP
01 Mat Sherman DNV
02 Pat Thaler APP YES
03 Buzz Rigsbee DNV
04 Bob O'Hara DIS YES
05 John Hawkins DNV
06 Tony Jeffree DIS YES
07 Bob Grow DIS YES
08 Stuart Kerry DNV
09 Bob Heile DNV
10 Roger Marks DIS YES
11 Mike Takefman DIS YES
12 Mike Lynch DNV
13 Steve Shellhammer APP
14 Jerry Upton DIS YES
15 Ajay Rajkumar DNV
16 Carl Stevenson DIS YES
---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---
TOTALS DNV DIS APP ABS
total: -07- -07- -03- -00-
Ballot Comments:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob O'Hara [bob@airespace.com] Mon 1/3/2005 3:23 PM
I vote "no" on this P&P change ballot. I will change my vote to "yes" upon my comments being addressed to my satisfaction. My comments are in the attached document.
(Editor: See combined comments for Carl below)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl R. Stevenson [wk3c@WK3C.COM] Mon 1/3/2005 4:23 PM
I also vote "no" on this ballot and have added my comments/questions to Bob's and appended my name to the filename of the attachment.
<<802.0-PP_Revision_Process-PP_Revision_ballot (O'Hara+Stevenson).doc>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com] Tue 1/4/2005 2:23 PM
My "non-voting" vote on "LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ P&P_Revision_Process"
DISAPPROVE, my vote will change to approve upon satisfactory resolution of the issues mentioned below.
First, I would strongly suggest that all ballots be distributed as PDF's and have line numbers on each page so that (a) page location of text is stable and (b) referenced text can be pointed to precisely.
7.1.6.1 sub (2)(a)
CHANGE "my" TO "may"
7.1.6.1 sub (2)
CURRENT TEXT:
a) Any working group or technical advisory group. A proposal shall require the affirmative vote of at least three fourths of the members present when the vote is taken, quorum requirements shall be as specified in subclause Error! Reference source not found. Error! Reference source not found.
SHOULD BE:
a) Any currently active working or technical advisory group. A proposal shall require the affirmative vote of at least three fourths of the members present of such working group or technical advisory group. When the vote is taken, quorum requirements shall be as specified in subclause [to be supplied by 1st Vice Chair].
RATIONALE
Clarity and precision, proposal can only be made by active groups.
7.1.6.2 Proposed changes
I do not understand the intent of this change. As closely as I can tell the only effect is that it will no longer be proper to discuss issues "formerly known as assigned for study" at the Sunday P&P meetings. This seems counterproductive. As such, I would be opposed. I am perfectly willing to mandate that "FKAAFS" go the bottom of the agenda on Sunday.
I also don't know what "may not be considered again until a future session" means.
Do you mean "shall not be considered again until a future plenary session"?
...or do you mean something else?
What does "not considered" mean? Does that mean discussion on the topic is forbidden on the EC reflector? Please define "considered" in this context. I am particularly concerned as to what this may mean if we enable "future sessions" to be teleconferences. I do not think we should be revising our P&P away from the plenaries.
I am willing to say that "FKAAFS" will not be balloted on before the next plenary meeting of the EC.
STRONG OBJECTION
To the following text:
An up to date LMSC P&P should be maintained on the IEEE 802 website.
REPLACE WITH:
"The currently in-force LMSC P&P shall be that which is on the IEEE 802 website."
(I would prefer that we also specify an unchanging URL)
Appropriate changes to the surrounding text should also be made. My position would be that a version of the P&P "is qualified" to be put in force at the end of the plenary session but that it is not in force until it is posted. What folks can get is what should be the law, not what they "are supposed to have". This will keep us clean with AudCom and probably (once again) make us the shining example of how things should be run.
7.1.6.5 Editorial Discretion
I have some problems with this. It needs to be less absolute so we have somewhere to go in case of a dispute. For example, there should be provision to roll back to the last voted text if there is a change in dispute. We should be notified if there is an non-voted update.
I look forward to our discussions to satisfactorily resolve all of these issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Jeffree [tony@jeffree.co.uk] Tue 1/4/2005 4:14 PM
Disapprove.
My copy of the Word file is punctuated by many occurrences of "Error! Reference source not found" where cross references fail to resolve. I don't see how I can be expected to vote on a document where it is not possible for me to determine what supporting material is being invoked by cross refs in the text.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger B. Marks [r.b.marks@ieee.org] Tue 1/4/2005 4:36 PM
I vote Disapprove, with the following comments:
(1) I disagree with 7.1.6.3:
"Distribution of ballots on P&P revisions to the LMSC membership shall be accomplished as provided by subclause... "
In the Word file, the reference is not found. That's actually a good thing, because the reference is incorrect. You can see this in the PDF rules, where the reference is to 3.4.2. In the previous edition of the rules, 3.4.2 was the correct reference. In the current version, the reference should be to 7.1.4.2.
7.1.4.2 explains the process for people to observe EC ballots in general. It says: "Provision shall be made for the LMSC membership to observe and comment on Executive Committee electronic ballots."
This provision is 7.1.4.2 is totally ineffective for EC ballots and is completely unsuitable for rules change ballots. I recall that, at the time the "provision to observe and comment" clause was inserted, I was assured that someone would institute a special process, with a unique (open-subscription) reflector and web page, for EC ballots.
This did not happen.
Unless provision is made to correct this flaw in the process, I cannot vote to approve other changes to it.
I am opposed to solving the problem by invoking the wish that ballots be forwarded to WG reflectors.
I will accept the following remedy: In 7.1.4.2, change "Provision shall be made for the LMSC membership to observe and comment on Executive Committee electronic ballots." to "Provision shall be made for the LMSC membership to observe and comment on Executive Committee electronic ballots. For this purpose, an electronic mail distribution system shall be implemented solely for EC balloting. Any individual shall be permitted to subscribe to and submit to this distribution system and to access the archives. No vote or comment shall be considered unless submitted though this distribution system."
(2) The reference in 7.1.6.2 and 7.1.6.4 to the 2/3 majority are both ambiguous, or are at least ambiguous enough to lead to debate at a future EC meeting. Remedy: change both "shall require the affirmative vote of at least two thirds of Committee members with voting rights"
and "shall require the affirmative vote of at least two thirds of all Executive Committee members with voting rights" to: "shall require a majority of at least two thirds of the Approve and Disapprove votes."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry1upton@aol.com Tue 1/4/2005 9:16 PM
I disapprove.
I will change my vote if the comments from Bob and Carl are addressed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com] Tue 1/4/2005 10:27 PM
Disapprove. I agree with a number of the comments previously submitted.
1. 7.1.6.1, item 2 should only apply to active WG/TAGs. and consequently sub item a must be changed. It is less clear to me if the priviledge in sub item b should also be restricted to voting members of the EC (thus eliminating hibernating WG Chairs and the Member Emeritus) from being able to propose except through a voting member. In the case of hibernating members, based on experience, I favor the change (EC activity has been far too marginal in the past). I am less inclined because of no experience with the Member Emeritus and expectation of consistent and quality participation when Mr. Thompson is in that position). In gereral though, I am willing to trust the EC to squelch rules change noise that might come from the non-voting EC members of subitem b and therefore only require clarification on subitem a.
2. 7.1.6.2, second paragraph. This is ambiguous and could be considered to conflict with RROR and since precidence would apply, it would rule out a motion to reconsider without justification. Delete the paragraph.
3. Various -- in mulitple places, I see "members with voting rights" or similar text. All such clarifications would be removed and P&P maintenance would be simplified if 7.1.4 simply stated: "Only members of the EC with voting rights are counted in either the numerator or denominator in determinating the approval threshold for any EC vote. Unless specified otherwise in these P&P all EC votes are in addition subject to the following provisions. Voting is by simple majority of yea divided by yea plus nay. The quroum requirement is at least one-half of the Executive Committee voting members present. The Chair only votes to break ties."
Please note that is is consistent with our practice (e.g., the 0,0,12 vote where Paul cast the tie breaking vote but per this section, the vote should not have passed because of the 12 abstentions), but this is a change from the current rule which states "simple majority of members present". We might also consider if the last sentence is consistent with our practice where RROR allows the the chair to cast a deciding vote (different than breaking a tie). If this change is considered out of scope for the ballot I would recommend: "Only members of the EC with voting rights are counted in either the numerator or denominator in determinating the approval threshold for any EC vote. Unless specified otherwise in these P&P all EC votes are in addition subject to the following provisions. Voting is by simple majority of voting members present. The quroum requirement is at least one-half of the Executive Committee voting members present. The Chair only votes to break ties."
4. 7.1.6.4, second paragraph. Change to read "...shall require at least a two-thirds affirmative EC vote, and will ..." If my preferred change to 7.1.4 is rejected, I agree with Bob O'Hara's comment about removing "voting", if my change is accepted, Bob's change is unnecessary.
5. 7.1.6.4, second and third paragraphs. Effectivity of the change is ambiguous. If there is no opposition or comment must the change be presented for another ratifying vogte of the EC at a plenary? This paragraph could apply to the electronic vote of the first paragraph, not necessarily a meeting vote at the next plenary meeting. The thrid paragraph has a redundant sentence with the second paragraph.
6. 7.1.6.5 There needs to be some recourse when members of the EC question if a change was truly editorial, which can occur with formatting changes (e.g., changing prose into a list occasionally does this but might just be considered an editorial change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Takefman [tak@cisco.com] Wed 1/5/2005 4:47 PM
Dissaprove pending resolution of the flurry of comments. I agree with many of them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pat_thaler@agilent.com Wed 1/5/2005 8:05 PM
I'm voting approve but there is one paragraph I would like to see clarified. In the last paragraph of 7.1.6.4, it isn't clear to me whether it is really saying what it means. Does may not be considered again apply only to the vote on final approval or does it mean that there has to be an entirely quiet plenary to plenary cycle on the issue of the change? If final approval of a change is rejected at plenary n, can a new version of the change be approved for sending out to ballot at plenary n so that final approval can occur at plenary n + 1 or must one wait to plenary n + 1 to initiate the first ballot on a revised change?
It might be better to replace that paragraph with "If LMSC approval is not achieved, the proposed revision is rejected. Any future consideration will require initiation of a proposed P & P Revision as in 7.1.6.1." This leaves the Proposer and the Executive Committee the freedom to decide whether the matter is urgent enough and understood enough to justify initiating a new change ballot at the current plenary or whether to wait (or drop the matter entirely).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pat_thaler@agilent.com Wed 1/5/2005 8:05 PM
I'm voting approve but there is one paragraph I would like to see clarified. In the last paragraph of 7.1.6.4, it isn't clear to me whether it is really saying what it means. Does may not be considered again apply only to the vote on final approval or does it mean that there has to be an entirely quiet plenary to plenary cycle on the issue of the change? If final approval of a change is rejected at plenary n, can a new version of the change be approved for sending out to ballot at plenary n so that final approval can occur at plenary n + 1 or must one wait to plenary n + 1 to initiate the first ballot on a revised change?
It might be better to replace that paragraph with "If LMSC approval is not achieved, the proposed revision is rejected. Any future consideration will require initiation of a proposed P & P Revision as in 7.1.6.1." This leaves the Proposer and the Executive Committee the freedom to decide whether the matter is urgent enough and understood enough to justify initiating a new change ballot at the current plenary or whether to wait (or drop the matter entirely).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
_____________________________________________
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 11:59 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Cc: 'steve_mills@hp.com'; 'r.pritchard@ieee.org'; 'g.robinson@computer.org'; 'John Walz'; 'James.W.Moore@ieee.org'; 'm.nielsen@ieee.org'; 'd.ringle@ieee.org'
Subject: +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ P&P_Revision_Process
Dear EC members,
Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on the LMSC P&P Revision Process. This ballot was approved at the Friday November 19, 2004 EC meeting. The text is identical to that presented at the meeting. The purpose and rationale for the ballot are as given in the attached ballot document.
Ballot Duration: 12/5/2004 - 1/5/2004 @ 11:59 PM EST
WG/TAG chairs, please distribute this P&P revision ballot to your groups, and invite them to comment through you.
Thanks & Regards,
Mat
<< File: 802.0-P&P_Revision_Process-P&P_Revision_ballot.doc >>
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Mail Stop 11B01
164 Totowa Road
Wayne, NJ 07474-0975
Office: +1 973.633.6344
Cell: +1 973.229.9520
Fax: +1 973.633.6004
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.802.0-PP_Revision_Process-PP_Revision_ballot (O'Hara+Stevenson).doc