Re: [802SEC] +++ Current LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results +++ WG Plenary
- To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
- Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ Current LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results +++ WG Plenary
- From: "Mike Takefman (tak)" <tak@CISCO.COM>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:22:44 -0500
- Reply-To: "Mike Takefman (tak)" <tak@CISCO.COM>
- Thread-Index: AcYm0hFwW6cyeau9SrmBVsxBdJHogwAFJm3Q
- Thread-Topic: [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.