Re: [802SEC] Current Resolution on the 'WG Membership & Meetings' P&P Revision Ballot

["Mike Takefman (tak)" <tak@CISCO.COM>]

That works for me too.

mike 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK] 
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 10:50 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Current Resolution on the 'WG 
> Membership & Meetings' P&P Revision Ballot
> 
> Mike -
> 
> The comment I heard was that there would be "model WG P&P" 
> dumped on us from a great height at some time in the future. 
> That being the case I see no reason to hobble ourselves ahead 
> of time by creating something that no doubt will later have 
> to be changed anyway once we have a clue as to what the 
> "model WG P&P" might do to us.
> 
> In the meantime, creating a situation where we have 
> make-work, and administrative make-work at that, imposed on 
> us is unacceptable IMHO.
> 
> If enough of us rail at it, we can make it go away (at least for now).
> 
> Regards,
> Tony
> 
> At 14:21 03/10/2005, Mike Takefman \(tak\) wrote:
> >
> >Tony,
> >
> >I railed at that particular bit of text (.17 has never 
> needed WG P&P), 
> >but I was told this requirement was coming from the SA and 
> we wouldn't 
> >have a choice about it in a few months.
> >When the time comes, rest assured that .17 will do the 
> minimum required 
> >in terms of WG P&P: Rule 1, there is no rule 1. Rule 2 see rule 1.
> >
> >I also agree that we should have a consistent methodology 
> for holding 
> >elections and more so, to have a methodology that brings to 
> light any 
> >irregularities that might occur.
> >
> >cheers,
> >
> >mike
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK]
> > > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 9:09 AM
> > > To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> > > Subject: Re: [802SEC] Current Resolution on the 'WG Membership & 
> > > Meetings' P&P Revision Ballot
> > >
> > > Mat -
> > >
> > > I will not be able to support these changes - 
> unfortunate, because 
> > > there is much in here that I do support and would like to see 
> > > approved ASAP.
> > >
> > > However, somewhere in this process, we seem to have acquired an 
> > > implicit requirement for WGs to establish their own 
> separate P&P - 
> > > from 7.2.2:
> > >
> > > "WG election procedures shall be defined within the WG P&P.
> > > Prior to their establishment, election procedures must be 
> reviewed 
> > > and approved by the EC before implementation."
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > "The Officers of the WG defined in the WG P&P shall constitute a 
> > > Working Group Executive Committee (WGEC) as referenced 
> elsewhere in 
> > > this P&P."
> > >
> > > We've managed to operate very effectively in 802.1 for >22 years 
> > > without having to spend valuable meeting time on the 
> development of 
> > > formal WG policies and procedures; it ain't broke and it 
> don't need 
> > > fixing.
> > >
> > > If we need to document procedures for conducting WG officer 
> > > elections, there is absolutely no good reason why they 
> shouldn't be 
> > > made consistent across 802, and therefore they are better 
> enshrined 
> > > in the 802 P&P rather than forcing the WGs to create 
> another level 
> > > of rules documentation to no very good purpose.
> > >
> > > If this particular aspect of the rules change is included and 
> > > approved in November, it will effectively disallow any WG that 
> > > doesn't have established P&P for electing officers 
> (including 802.3, 
> > > for example, who defer to the
> > > 802 P&P on this point) from conducting officer elections.
> > > That is, I believe, unacceptable, as establishing WG P&P 
> either from 
> > > scratch or as a set of changes to existing WG P&P can be 
> (as we have 
> > > found in this series of changes) a lengthy and in some cases, 
> > > non-terminating, process.
> > >
> > > If the two paragraphs quoted above remain in the document I will 
> > > have to vote against this set of changes.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tony
> > >
> > > At 03:08 02/10/2005, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
> > > >Folks,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >We had a pretty good turn out for the last P&P meeting, 
> and I felt 
> > > >there was a fair amount of consensus.  Attached please find
> > > the current
> > > >resolution on the 'WG Membership and Meetings' P&P revision
> > > ballot.  If
> > > >you feel you cannot support the changes in this document,
> > > let me know.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Note - I still need to update the document to reflect 
> the approved 
> > > >changes from last plenary.  I prefer to wait till I get a
> > > final version
> > > >of the approved updates from SA before doing any further
> > > editing.  But
> > > >I will rewrite this revision against the updated P&P 
> prior to the 
> > > >November plenary for clarity.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Mat
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> > > >Senior Member Technical Staff
> > > >BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
> > > >Office: +1 973.633.6344
> > > >email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >----------
> > > >This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> > > reflector.
> > > >This list is maintained by Listserv.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tony
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email 
> reflector.  
> > > This list is maintained by Listserv.
> > >
> 
> 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.