Re: [802SEC] Updated text for 'WG Membership & Meeting' P&P Revision
Tony,
My comments are not related to yours. Here is what I said:
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 10:21 PM +0000 05/11/16, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>Mat -
>
>Can you clarify - are Roger's unresolved issues with the proposal I
>made, or on other aspects of the ballot material?
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>At 19:17 16/11/2005, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>>Why don't we keep the slot. I will generated updated versions of the
>>changes tonight, but I think Roger / others still have unresolved issues
>>on this change so I want to have one last shot at a face to face.
>>
>>
>>
>>Mat
>>
>>
>>
>>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>>Senior Member Technical Staff
>>BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
>>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>>email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>>
>> _____
>>
>>From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
>>Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 2:11 PM
>>To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
>>Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>>Subject: RE: [802SEC] Updated text for 'WG Membership & Meeting' P&P
>>Revision
>>
>>
>>
>>Mat -
>>
>>I presume that you have now adopted my proposal, in which case, there is
>>no longer a need for the scheduled Thurs PM meeting?
>>
>>Regards,
>>Tony
>>
>>At 19:16 14/11/2005, Sherman, Matthew J. \(US SSA\) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>If there are no objections by tomorrow evening, I will adopt Tony's
>>recommendations.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Mat
>>
>>
>>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>>Senior Member Technical Staff
>>BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
>>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>>email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>>
>> _____
>>
>>From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
>>Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 2:03 PM
>>To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
>>Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Updated text for 'WG Membership & Meeting' P&P
>>Revision
>>
>>At 23:53 13/11/2005, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>>
>>Folks,
>>
>>
>>
>>As requested, I've modified the existing 'WG Membership & Meeting' P&P
>>Revision to be against the most recently approved P&P (which should be
>>posted shortly). No substantive changes have been made.
>>
>>
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>>Mat
>>
>>
>>Mat -
>>
>>The wording I have a problem with is as follows:
>>
>>"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."
>>
>>The first sentence mandates the existence of a WG P&P document;
>>otherwise, the "shall" cannot be complied with.
>>
>>Yes, at some point, the SA will sick some set of model WG P&P on us;
>>however, forcing all 802 WGs to establish P&P ahead of time, with the
>>likelihood that the SA actions will cause us to re-work them later on,
>>seems to be a gratuitous waste of all our time.
>>
>>Also, I see absolutely no rational reason why we should have N
>>differently worded sets of election procedures for officer positions, so
>>I can see no reason why this issue shouldn't be resolved by adding WG
>>election procedures to the 802 P&P.
>>
>>My proposal is, therefore:
>>
>>1) That both sentences in the above quoted text is removed from the
>>existing P&P rules change; and
>>
>>2) A separate rules change be initiated (which I am happy to do if you
>>wish) to add WG officer election procedures to the 802 P&P.
>>
>>If either of those sentences stay in, I will vote against this change.
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>Tony
>>
>>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.