Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Membership & Meeting P&P
I also support the changes proposed by
Tony.
Carl
At 15:11 02/05/2005, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
Dear EC members,
Attached
you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on
WG
Membership & Meeting Policies and Procedures. This ballot was
approved
at the Friday March 18, 2005 EC meeting. The text is identical
to that
presented at the meeting (but changes have been
highlighted). The
purpose and rationale for the ballot are as given
in the attached ballot
document.
Ballot Duration: 5/2/2005
- 6/2/2005 @ 11:59 PM EST
WG/TAG chairs, please distribute this
P&P revision ballot to your
groups, and invite them to comment
through you. Please direct any
comments on this revision to the reflector
for collection.
Thanks & Regards,
Mat
-
A couple of initial comments - I may have more once the WG has had a
chance to respond.
While most of what I see here is great, there are a
couple of issues that force me to vote Disapprove, but I will be happy to
change to Approve if they are addressed to my satisfaction.
Firstly,
the wording around which Interim can be substituted for which Plenary seems to
be unnecessarily convoluted, and seeps to have appeared out of nowhere (no
recollection of this being discussed in the context of this change before).
Apart from anything else, it will be a total PIA to have to check whether an
interim falls within or without 3 months of a Plenary that the voter didn't
have attendance credit for, and for practical purposes, I don't believe that
is how the WG Chairs will evaluate attendance even if these words are approved
(I certainly will not - updating voting lists already takes way too much time,
and this particular change would be a pain to automate). So I would need the
wording to be changed so that there is no restriction on which Plenary an
interim is deemed to be a substitute for. I don't believe that this makes any
significant change to the overall effect of the membership rule, so there is
no good reason to keep it as stated in your draft.
Secondly, I
believe that we should fix the current lack of clarity in the rules about who
is/is not eligible to vote in recirculations. I believe that WGs currently
restrict the voting list in recircs to the set of voters that were eligible at
the start of the ballot (this is logical - in effect, the recirc is a
continuation of the original ballot process. However, I have already had one
comment back from my WG offering the opinion that some WGs use this approach
effectively to disenfranchise new voters, and suggesting that we cap the
number of recircs at 3, forcing a new full WG ballot if 3 recircs doesn't fix
the problem. I'm not sure that I agree with that proposal, but we could
certainly add clarity to our rules by explicitly stating what the voting rule
is here (which is currently not done).
The text of 7.2.4.2.2 currently
contains the only words we have on recircs, viz:
"There is a
recirculation requirement. For guidance on the recirculation process see
subclause 5.4.3.2 Resolution of comments, objections, and negative votes in
the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual."
I would propose we
change it thusly:
"There is a recirculation requirement. For guidance
on the recirculation process see subclause 5.4.3.2 Resolution of comments,
objections, and negative votes in the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations
Manual. Only those WG participants that were voting
members of the WG at the time that a WG letter ballot was started are entitled
to vote on recirculations of that ballot."
Thirdly, I support
the improvements proposed by Geoff T.
Regards,
Tony
---------- 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.