Re: [802SEC] Revised LMSC P&P dated November 05
Pat / Geoff,
There seems to be some confusion. The changes you are reviewing were
already approved at the last meeting. All we are supposed to be
checking is whether I properly implemented the editing of the approved
changes. We are not allowed to make additional modification to the
document (aside from minor editorials).
Unless you see an actual error in my editing, I'd prefer to add any
editorial comments you have to the ongoing P&P revision titled
'Editorial'.
Please confirm that you have no objections to my implementation of the
approved changes so I can have the updated P&P posted.
Thanks,
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pat.thaler@AVAGOTECH.COM [mailto:pat.thaler@AVAGOTECH.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:20 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Revised LMSC P&P dated November 05
Mat and Geoff,
1. I have accepted the list of regulatory documents as unavoidable, but
I don't see how any of us could be expected to be running our groups to
the agglomeration of so many sets of rules. I know I haven't read and
kept up to date on the IEEE Constitution, Bylaws, policies, etc much
less their BOG resolutions much less NY Not-For-Profit Corp law. To some
extent, I'm willing to take it on faith that the IEEE-SA Standards Board
Bylaws and Operations Manual are compatible with the rules above them
such that if I follow the rules in them I'm operating in a way that is
consistent with the documents that are above them in the hierarchy. But
that still leaves the CS documents. How many of us have read the CS
Constitution, Bylaws, P&P and resolutions such that we can be sure we
are following them?
I also don't understand in what sense we currently have a reporting
relationship to the IEEE Computer Society. Many years ago when I joined
IEEE 802 we were "Project 802" and at least nominally through the
Computer Society as our sponsor. Over the years, the rules changed or we
grew to the point where the LAN/MAN Standards Committee was a sponsor.
We submit our projects directly to the Standards Board and not through
the CS SAB as Figure 1 implies.
This discrepancy has bothered me for a while but it seemed better to
focus on items that were actual operational problems. This material
doesn't accurately portray the way we operate, but it hasn't, as far as
I'm aware, caused problems.
7.1.1 g) Functional requirements - we don't manage or use that document
any more so it should have been dropped.
7.1.3.3 Geoff, the difference between simple majority and the rules for
forwarding PARs and drafts is the effect of abstentions. For the general
rule, a vote of 6-5-3 would pass - it is a simple majority where the
approves/(approve + disapprove) is greater than 50%. For forwarding a
PAR or draft, that same vote would fail. There were 6+5+3=14 EC members
present with voting rights so 8 in favor is required to meet the rule
for approval of a majority of EC members present with voting rights.
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@NORTEL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 12:58 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Revised LMSC P&P dated November 05
Mat-
Lots of minor edits and a few of the comments are major objections.
I made it as far as clause 8.1 before I ran up against your deadline.
The comments are entered as Post-its on the PDF
(Since you STILL did not provide line numbers) :^)>
Geoff
At 07:57 PM 12/4/2005 , Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>Folks,
>
>
>
>Attached please find an updated to the LMSC P&P based on changes
>approved in November 05 (with rev's on and off). I will wait till the
>January 4th. If I hear no objections, I will do minor format updates
>and have this version posted.
>
>
>
>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.
>
----------
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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.