Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Request for WG Strawpolls / Update to 'WG Membership and Meetings' P&P Revision



Mat,

802.16 passed the following motion:

"That the WG not conduct a straw poll on the P&P 
changes on the grounds that the changes are 
ambiguous".

[We still wanted to provide feedback on the 
issue, so we took a straw poll on the question of 
whether to support a change tightening the rules 
for retention of membership, making it more 
difficult to retain membership. 7 were in favor, 
38 against.]

That's the 802.16 view. Now, here is mine:

This language is broken! We are on the verge of 
making mincemeat of our membership rules.

Let me be as explicit as possible. The sentence 
we have been asked to review can be parsed at 
least two ways. Here is the sentence with two 
different bracket sets:

(a) "Membership is lost if a person fails to 
[meet the participation requirements of the 
Working Group at two out of the last four Plenary 
sessions].

(b) "Membership is lost if a person [fails to 
meet the participation requirements of the 
Working Group] at two out of the last four 
Plenary sessions]".

Let's assume I have participated in exactly two of the last four plenaries.

I DID [meet the participation requirements of the 
Working Group at two out of the last four Plenary 
sessions]. There, I did NOT fail to [do the thing 
in brackets in parsing (a)]. Therefore, I would 
not lose membership under parsing (a).

However, it's also true that I did [fail to meet 
the participation requirements of the Working 
Group], at one Plenary, and at another. I failed 
twice. So, I [did the thing in brackets in 
parsing (b)] at two out of the last four 
plenaries. Therefore, I do lose membership.

I think it is a bad idea to write rules based on 
negatives. This language say what happens when 
someone doesn't do something. The right way to 
get a clear rule is to say what happens when 
someone DOES do something.

The existing rules, while ultimately unambiguous, are very hard to decipher.

I would like to propose that, if we are going to 
tamper with this rule, we start by simplifying 
it. My suggestion is to start with the 
interpretation that I wrote for 802.16 
<http://ieee802.org/16/membership.html>. I think 
it is clear and simple:

"Membership is granted at each 802.16 LMSC 
Plenary Session to those in attendance who have 
participated in at least two recent 802.16 
Sessions, one of which was an 802.16 LMSC Plenary 
Session. At that time, full membership rights 
begin immediately upon the request of the 
qualifying potential member. Following each 802 
LMSC Plenary Session, membership is retained only 
by those who have participated in at least two 
recent 802 Sessions, one of which was an 802 LMSC 
Plenary Session."

This is followed by definitions of the terms 
"participated", "802.16 LMSC Plenary Session", 
and "recent 802.16 Session." There is no need for 
language like the awkward "Membership starts at 
the beginning of the third plenary session 
attended by the participant", or the ambiguous 
"One interim session of a Working Group or 
subgroup may be substituted for a Working Group 
Plenary sessions (sic)."

I'll admit that I have not stayed up to date on 
the language of this P&P ballot. However, having 
studied it yesterday, I find that I have several 
objections. I do not think it is ready.

Roger


At 12:38 AM -0500 05/11/14, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>Folks
>
>For the 'WG Membership and Meetings' revision, the requirement for a WG
>P&P was removed which should increase the approval level.  The changes
>in the WG membership gain / loss remain.  However a number of 802
>members have expressed concern.  The request from the Chair of 802  and
>myself is that:
>
>ALL WG POLL THEIR MEMBERSHIP concerning the following issue:
>
>For the first line of the 'Loss' clause do the membership prefer:
>
>       "Membership is lost if a person fails to meet the participation
>requirements of the Working Group at two out of the last THREE Plenary
>sessions."
>
>Or,
>
>       "Membership is lost if a person fails to meet the participation
>requirements of the Working Group at two out of the last FOUR Plenary
>sessions."
>
>Please provide feedback to me by end of day Wednesday on the result of
>the straw polls.  The current revision of the change is attached.
>
>Thanks,
>
>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.
>
>Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
> 
>	name="802.0-WG_Membership_&_Meetings_-_Proposed_Resolutions_051113_r1.pdf"
>Content-Description: 
>802.0-WG_Membership_&_Meetings_-_Proposed_Resolutions_051113_r1.pdf
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
> 
>	filename="802.0-WG_Membership_&_Meetings_-_Proposed_Resolutions_051113_r1.pdf"
>
>Attachment converted: Little 
>Al:802.0-WG_Membership_&#43E32.pdf (PDF /«IC») 
>(00043E32)

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