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

Re: [802SEC] +++ Current LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results +++ WG Plenary



Matt, 

I vote disapprove, I essentially agree with Bob Grow.

I have sympathy with the quorum problem and am willing 
to see that addressed, but it should be dealt with in the 
interim meeting section.

I believe that the 1 year pre-announcement period is 
sufficient to remove the quorum requirement.

However, I think we need to have a consistent view of
aging and acquisition of WG membership, and creating
more plenary meetings is a recipe for disaster.

cheers, 

mike

-------------------------------------------

Michael Takefman              tak@cisco.com
Distinguished Engineer,       Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399       cell:613-220-6991 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) 
> [mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:54 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] +++ Current LMSC P&P Revision Ballot 
> Results +++ WG Plenary
> 
> Dear EC members,
> 
>  
> 
> Below you will see the current status of this ballot. All 
> comments received to date are compiled at the end. Please let 
> me know if you see any errors.
> 
>  
> 
> As previously noted, this ballot closes February 2nd (in two 
> days!).  So far we have one vote.  Please fulfill you duty as 
> representatives to the executive committee and participate in 
> the ballot.  Don't just show up at the final vote and express 
> your opinions for the first time then.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Mat
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Voters                  DNV   DIS   APP   ABS   Comments Provided?
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 00 Paul Nikolich        DNV
> 
> 01 Mat Sherman          DNV                     YES
> 
> 02 Pat Thaler          DNV
> 
> 03 Buzz Rigsbee         DNV
> 
> 04 Bob O'Hara           DNV
> 
> 05 John Hawkins         DNV
> 
> 06 Tony Jeffree         DNV
> 
> 07 Bob Grow                   DIS               YES
> 
> 08 Stuart Kerry         DNV
> 
> 09 Bob Heile            DNV
> 
> 10 Roger Marks          DNV
> 
> 11 Mike Takefman        DNV
> 
> 12 Mike Lynch           DNV
> 
> 13 Steve Shellhammer    DNV
> 
> 14 Jerry Upton          DNV
> 
> 15 Ajay Rajkumar        DNV
> 
> 16 Carl Stevenson       DNV
> 
> ---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---
> 
> TOTALS                   DNV  DIS  APP  ABS
> 
> total:                  -16- -01- -00- -00-
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Ballot Comments:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> Ivan OAKES [ivan.oakes@st.com]
> Wed 1/4/2006 6:53 AM
> 
>  
> 
> A change for the better!
> 
>  
> 
> There is a typo "much" should be "must" in the new 8.3 section.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com]
> Wed 1/4/2006 11:10 AM
> 
>  
> 
> Mat:
> 
>  
> 
> I think this is a bad approach to achieve the objectives.  I 
> think the right way to address quorum is in the interim WG 
> meetings section, and that roll-on and roll-off of attendance 
> should also be addressed directly, not in this obtuse manner.  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)[mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM]
> Tue 1/3/2006 11:30 PM
> 
>  
> 
> Bob,
> 
>  
> 
> Once again some excellent comments.  I'd need to think about 
> how to address them.  The more important question I have is - 
> Are you for or against the concept?
> 
>  
> 
> It is not clear to me from your comments if you are trying to 
> make the idea work, or believe it should be scrapped on 
> principle.  The details can be fixed, but I won't bother if 
> people think this is a bad idea.  
> 
>  
> 
> WG Plenary have pluses and minuses.  In general it passes 
> greater autonomy to the working groups which by definition is 
> at the cost of some unity within LMSC. My opinion is that 
> some groups feel interims deserve equal status with plenary.  
> Other groups do not.  This P&P revision is intended to let WG 
> make the choice for themselves.
> 
>  
> 
> There are some areas where I feel it is essential to have 
> commonality across LMSC.  I happen to feel very strongly 
> about the work the architecture group is doing.  We also need 
> a consistent process for handling PAR's and drafts.  Key 
> process issues such as membership and voting should have a 
> uniform framework.  Periodically all our groups should meet 
> together.  But how often per year the individual groups meet 
> and how many of those meetings are designated as 'plenary' I 
> don't see as critical to LMSC as a whole.  Giving WG some 
> flexibility in terms of how they handle these issues may 
> smooth some of the tensions that exist today.  So I'm 
> inclined to push for this revision.
> 
>  
> 
> Anyway, I encourage folks to voice their opinions on this 
> change - particularly the general concept.  I recognize the 
> specifics will need some work but let's start with the 
> question of whether the idea has merit first.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com]
> Tue 1/3/2006 9:14 PM
> 
>  
> 
> I vote disapprove.  This is poorly written, is grossly 
> incomplete and if approved would introduce significant 
> ambiguity in the document, and further divergence between the 
> unifying characteristics of LMSC WGs.
> 
>  
> 
> General -- This change attempts to make plenary generic for 
> LMSC plenary or WG plenary for avoiding quorum requirements 
> and for membership determination.  There are though 74 
> occurrences of plenary in the body or the current P&P, most 
> not related to the stated rationale.  A few are qualified as 
> "LMSC plenary" already, but most others would need to be 
> edited to clarify that the plenary referred to was an LMSC 
> plenary, otherwise the ambiguity becomes a problem.
> 
>  
> 
> Page 1, line 31 -- At present, LMSC session and plenary 
> session are synonyms.  This change makes the headings and 
> much of the content below confusing.
> 
>  
> 
> Page 1, line 43 -- This is an example of something that 
> doesn't make sense if plenary is generic for LMSC plenary or 
> WG plenary.
> 
>  
> 
> Page 2, line 37 -- I don't believe the second sentence of 8.3 
> adds anything.  Whether or not WGs co-locate has nothing to 
> do with whether or not it is a WG plenary session.  I also 
> find the final sentence of little value.
> 
>  
> 
> Page 2, line 35 -- I find the paragraph awkward.  Ignoring my 
> substantive problems with the proposed change, I would change 
> for readability as follows:
> 
>  
> 
> "In addition to LMSC plenary sessions, an LMSC WG/TAG may 
> hold WG Plenary sessions. A WG/TAG may hold no more than one 
> such session between LMSC Plenary sessions. A WG plenary 
> session shall be announced at least one year in advance; and 
> shall be designated as a WG Plenary session.  The 
> announcement must include the exact date(s) and venue.
> 
> Dates and venue may only be changed during this required 
> notice period in extreme cases where acts of nature or 
> governments make the venue unavailable, or prevent attendance 
> of a significant number of WG members."
> 
>  
> 
> Page 2, line 41 -- This introduces inconsistency with 
> 7.2.3.1.  What now is a "duly constituted WG interim"?  It 
> introduces further divergence in WG practice.  This does not 
> disallow a duly constituted WG or TF/TG meeting to be 
> substituted for a plenary, and therefore would allow 
> membership to be gained in as little as 2 months.  
> 
>  
> 
> While many believe accellerated attrition of the member list 
> is beneficial, it would cut the time for WGs holding WG 
> plenaries to nominally 6 months while leaving those groups 
> not holding WG plenaries at nominaly 12 or 14 months.
> 
>  
> 
> One can become a member without ever attending an LMSC 
> plenary.  No participation in PAR review or other items that 
> unify the groups of LMSC would then be part of their 
> experience.  This also puts us on the slipery slope of other 
> items that can only be handled at an LMSC plenary session.  A 
> slope I'm reluctant to approach.
> 
>  
> 
> This also makes it even more difficult to maintain membership 
> in two groups because of more rapid age out.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> David Cypher [mailto:david.cypher@nist.gov] Tuesday, January 
> 03, 2006 10:23 AM
> 
>  
> 
>    In 8.3 there is a much that should be a must, but really 
> should be a shall.
> 
> I hope that this is not the typo that Mat fixed. :-)
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 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.