Re: [802SEC] Request for WG Strawpolls / Update to 'WG Membership and Meetings' P&P Revision
Mat,
I have serious reservations about much of the
language in this rules change. Ih have become
doubtful that it is sufficiently mature.
I previous mentioned the ambiguity in the
membership retention language. Here are more
concerns:
*I am dead-set against the proposal to strike
"Working Group members shall participate in the
consensus process in a manner consistent with
their professional expert opinion as individuals,
and not as organizational representatives." This
is a bedrock principle of 802. Why kill it?
*Page 3, Line 3: "The interim session must have
occurred during the interval of the last three
Plenary sessions." The "three" should be "four",
for consistency, if we revert to the two-of-four
rule.
*I cannot accept the language "Participation at a
session is defined as attending 75% of the
meeting hours as determined by the WG Chair."
This is an invitation to the Chair to institute
an arbitrary implementation. Moreover,
participation should be defined by the WG
procedures, not by the WG Chair. Besides, there
is no clear definition of "meeting hours",
especially when parallel meetings occur. I can
accept "Participation at a session is defined as
attending 75% of the session according to defined
WG procedures."
*On Page 2, Line 17 refers to "first Plenary
session of the next even numbered year" but line
28 refers to "the March Plenary of even-numbered
year." I think we should change "March" to
"first", for consistency and to cover the
possibility of an unexpected schedule shift.
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_+E32.pdf (PDF /«IC»)
>(00043E32)
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.