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

["Rigsbee, Everett O" <everett.o.rigsbee@BOEING.COM>]

Why not have a base set of WG rules in place for all WG's that can be amended and extended by creation of WG specific P&Ps if deemed really necessary to accommodate cultural differences ???  

Thanx,  Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing IT - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA  98124-2207
(425) 865-2443    Fx: (425) 865-6721
Cell: (425) 417-1022
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK] 
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 6:09 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.

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