Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Membership & Meeting P&P
I agree with Tony
and Geoff here. If we were going to do something about cutting off recircs that
go on forever, I would prefer that we do it on a time basis (e.g. 8 months from
the opening of the Working Group ballot) rather than based on the number of
recirculations. One could due to some minor process glitch have to run an extra
recirculation fairly close on the heels of other recirculations and it would be
a shame to have to run a new Working Group ballot because it moved you from 3 to
4 recirculations. On the other hand, a group might dawdle on resolving comments
and starting recirculations on a lower priority project so that the time
stretches out. The problem of disinfranchised new voters (and potentially stall
old voters) increases with time rather than with
recirculations.
Regards,
Pat
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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.