Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Membership & Meeting P&P

[Geoff Thompson <gthompso@NORTEL.COM>]

Tony/Mat

I suggest we "improve" the clarity about who gets to vote in WG
ballot recircs by adopting wording that is similar to what goes on in
Sponsor Balloting (e.g. the "balloting group" is the WG
membership at the time the document is voted out to ballot -OR- at the
time the ballot is opened). In that way we will further the aspect of WG
balloting that is "training" for Sponsor Ballot.

I support in broad principle Tony's concept of cutting off recircs that
go on forever.

Geoff


At 10:36 AM 5/4/2005 +0100, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> 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.