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

Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process

Title: RE: [802SEC] Five day approval process
Bob,
 
I'm not convinced of that. We have in the past suspended parts of them. They certainly contain details that seem way to petty for bylaws. Perhaps in the future, consideration should be given to separating them into a bylaws and an operating rules, but my view is that the bylaws document is the upper level Standards Board rules about sponsors.
 
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara
Sent: Wednesday, 27 April, 2005 9:57 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process

Pat,
 
We cannot "suspend" the Policies and Procedures of the LMSC.  These are, regardless of the name of the document, the bylaws of the organization. 

 -Bob
 

 

From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 9:37 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process

Paul,
 
So, it seems we have a procedural problem here. It seems there is good concensus on the document, but our rule has a very specific requirement that wasn't met: "Working Group or TAG communications with government bodies shall not be released without prior approval by a 75% majority of the Working Group or TAG."
 
How do we go forward from here? Some options could be:
1) Conduct a letter ballot of the TAG, but if the submission deadline is May 6, there isn't the 15 days required by 7.2.4.2.2.
 
2) Not forward the document.
 
3) Have an EC motion to suspend the rules. Such a motion is valid under RR (25) for "any rule of the assembly except bylaws" (or constitution). Is not debateable, is not amendable, requires 2/3 approval. I think since the rule is in "Policies and Procedures", that isn't bylaws and the motion would be valid. If our chair feels this is the appropriate course of action, then I would make the motion:
 
Moved that we suspend the rules in order to allow release of the IEEE 802.18 comments in response to the Canadian UWB consultation.
 
4) Alternatively, we could suspend the rule requiring 15 days for the TAG letter ballot and do a one week TAG letter ballot to complete before May 6. It isn't clear whether there is a response threshold for a valid WG/TAG letter ballots not on draft standards. We could put one in the motion given the shortened response time and leave it to the TAG to ensure that they get enough response. If there is any question of the level of support for this document, this would be the way to go.
 
I haven't seen any indication that there is controversy over the content of the document, so 3 seems appropriate.
 
Regards,
Pat
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Michael Lynch
Sent: Wednesday, 27 April, 2005 8:41 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process

Roger,

The decision to work on this response by conference call was taken at the closing session of 802.18 in Atlanta. The call details (bridge number and dates of the first two calls) were agreed at that meeting. The entire TAG was notified prior to each of the calls and furnished the then current working draft. During the second call it was decided to have a third and final call which and the TAG was notified. In response to that notice (and final draft) comments were received from one individual and considered on the third call. The completed response was then circulated to the TAG for further comments.

There was no vote taken and the comments represent the consensus of those who participated. After the final version was circulated there was only one response and that simply asked if that person's comments had been considered since he didn't join the conference call (they were considered and for the most part accepted).

Since this is a consensus document created by those in the TAG that decided to participate in developing the comments. While no formal vote was taken it would seem that silence by the TAG after the final document was circulated is assent to the document.

Glad to discuss. Connection to the internet here at the CITEL meeting in Guatemala City is not so good but I will check email as often as I can.

Regards,

Mike

972 814 4901 through 21 May

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 14:02
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process


A five-day review under Procedure 14.2 should include a report of the WG or TAG voting results, since the procedure specifies a minimum:

Procedure 14.2: Working Group or TAG communications with government bodies shall not be released without prior approval by a 75% majority of the Working Group or TAG. Such communications may proceed unless blocked by an EC vote. For position statements not presented for review in an EC meeting, EC members shall have a review period of at least five days; if, during that time, a motion to block it is made, release of the position statement will be withheld until the motion  fails.

Roger


>I will let Mike answer definitively for himself, but in the past, this
>has just been the 5 day EC pre-filing review and the doc would go as a
>.18 filing. (if nobody makes a motion to block filing within the 5 day window, Mike can file it as a .18 document, per the P&P)

>
>Regards,
>Carl
>
>
>
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Stephen J
>Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:17 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
>
>Mike,
>
>            Is your email intended to initiate an EC vote on this
> 802.18 document?  If so would it then become an 802 document versus an
> 802.18 document?
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>_________________
>Steve Shellhammer
>Intel Corporation
>(858) 391-4570
>
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Michael Lynch
>Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 1:28 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: [802SEC] Five day approval process
>
>Dear EC members,
>Please find enclosed 802.18's comments in response to the Canadian UWB
>consultation. The comment period closes 6 May. During our 18 March
>closing EC meeting I indicated that 802.18 would work on a response to
>the Canadian consultation by conference calls and correspondence. This
>document is the result of that effort. I would like to be able to forward this to Industry Canada on 2 May. Regards, Mike

>+1 972 684 7518 (ESN 444 7518) Voice
>+1 972 684 3774 (ESN 444 3775) FAX
>+1 972 814 4901 (ESN 450 9401) Mobile
><<802.18-05.0017-02-0000_RR-TAG_Draft_IC_Comments.doc>>

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.

---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv. ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.