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 +++ Editorial



Approve.

Regards,
Tony

At 05:05 01/02/2006, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>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.  So far we have no
>vote.  Frankly, I'm not too concerned on this one because if anyone
>objects to anything I'll simply put it back the way it was.  But if you
>are going to vote against it (or care) please vote and comment.  Don't
>just show up the final vote and express your opinions for the first time
>on the floor of the closing EC meeting.
>
>
>
>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             DNV                     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                     YES
>
>---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---
>
>TOTALS                   DNV  DIS  APP  ABS
>
>total:                  -16- -01- -00- -00-
>
>
>
>
>
>Ballot Comments:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------
>
>Grow, Bob [bob.grow@INTEL.COM]                        Wed 1/4/2006 12:34
>PM
>
>
>
>My first comment was a bit flipant.  If there are very few mentions of
>task forces and task groups, why force the abreviation for both to be
>TG?  Is it that big a problem to include TG/TF as the acronym?
>
>
>
>Carl raises a substantive issue with replacing all uses of WG/TAG with
>WG.  With a bit more thought, I'm not sure that the simplification
>enhances clarity, it probably detracts from it, and we would need to
>inspect every case of TAG and determine if the substitution is correct.
>
>Probably something of a stretch for an editorial change as some of them
>are subtle.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------
>
>Carl R. Stevenson [wk3c@WK3C.COM]                     Wed 1/4/2006 11:59
>AM
>
>
>
> > 1.  If a TAG doesn't mind being a WG in the P&P then I'll have a
>
> > harder time arguing against a task force being abrievated as TG.
>
>
>
>Mat and Bob ...
>
>
>
>There is a distinct difference between a TAG and a WG ... TAGs may not
>write (full use) standards - only Recommended Practices and other
>"specialty"
>
>documents within their chartered purview ...
>
>
>
>Why would a task force be abbreviated "TG" ???
>
>
>
> > 2.  No problem on lower case plenary and interim.  Unless the WG
>
> > plenary change needs to distinguish a Plenary (i.e., LMSC
>
> > Plenary) from a generic plenary (i.e., WG Plenary or LMSC Plenary).
>
> > But then, capitalization being the only distinguishing characteristic
>
> > would probably be a bit too subtle for me.
>
>
>
>I have no problem with the little p ...
>
>
>
> > 3.  Subclause 17.1 has bigger problems than a non-existent working
>
> > guide.  We shouldn't reiterate NesCom and SB requirements at all, only
>
>
> > reference them.  It is in conflict with 7.4 (two plenary sessions
>
> > instead of six months).  The second bullet is instructions for filling
>
>
> > out the PAR form and don't belong here any more than the bad
>
> > reference.
>
>
>
>Agree with Bob ...
>
>
>
> > 4.  It seems strange to me to replace things like "working groups"
>
> > with WG and leave the occurances already in the P&P of "WGs".  Your
>
> > attempt to have the singular be defined as either singular or plural
>
> > is incomplete.
>
>
>
>Agree with Bob ...
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------
>
>Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)                          Tue 1/3/2006 10:24
>PM
>
>
>
>Bob,
>
>
>
>Excellent comments!  Here are some responses:
>
>
>
>1) There are actually very few occurrences of Task Group or Task Force
>in the P&P, so it's not too critical how we resolve things.  Off hand,
>I've always treated them as essentially the same thing with different
>names.  If they are truly different things, I would be helpful if you
>clarified the difference to me.  Perhaps they should be enumerated then.
>
>
>
>2) Agreed.
>
>
>
>3) I agree with the comment, but fixing it would be (in my opinion) more
>than editorial.  So I plan to leave it be for now.
>
>
>
>4)Opps!  That slipped through the cracks, but I agree completely.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------
>
>Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com]                        Tue 1/3/2006 8:22
>PM
>
>
>
>A few observations on your "more extensive" changes, and desired
>changes.
>
>
>
>1.  If a TAG doesn't mind being a WG in the P&P then I'll have a harder
>time arguing against a task force being abrievated as TG.
>
>
>
>2.  No problem on lower case plenary and interim.  Unless the WG plenary
>change needs to distinguish a Plenary (i.e., LMSC Plenary) from a
>generic plenary (i.e., WG Plenary or LMSC Plenary).  But then,
>capitalization being the only distinguishing characteristic would
>probably be a bit too subtle for me.
>
>
>
>3.  Subclause 17.1 has bigger problems than a non-existent working
>guide.  We shouldn't reiterate NesCom and SB requirements at all, only
>reference them.  It is in conflict with 7.4 (two plenary sessions
>instead of six months).  The second bullet is instructions for filling
>out the PAR form and don't belong here any more than the bad reference.
>
>
>
>4.  It seems strange to me to replace things like "working groups" with
>WG and leave the occurances already in the P&P of "WGs".  Your attempt
>to have the singular be defined as either singular or plural is
>incomplete.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------
>
>Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)                          Mon 1/2/2006 11:49
>PM
>
>
>
>(Please see reflector archive for attachment)
>
>
>
>The last e-mail was the 'official' ballot which was needed to open the
>topic for discussion.  Attached are my current recommended changes which
>
>are much more extensive.   If any of you have any editorial issues you'd
>
>like to resolve, please send them to me (with recommended textual
>changes).
>
>
>
>There are additional changes I want to make, but I want to see if anyone
>objects to my positions first.  Here is a short list of issues not yet
>addressed for comment:
>
>
>
>1) There are a large number of occurrences of 'WG or TAG' and 'WG/TAG'
>
>in the text.  I feel this is cumbersome and unnecessary.  The original
>intent of the P&P TAG text was that TAG procedures are identical to WG
>procedures unless explicitly identified otherwise.  I plan to replace
>most occurrences of the phrases above with 'WG' unless I hear objections
>to this approach.
>
>
>
>2) There are many occurrences of 'Plenary' as a proper noun
>(capitalized).  'Interim' is almost never capitalized.  I plan to
>eliminate most occurrences of the capitalization of 'plenary'.  From a
>pure grammar perspective I think it can go either way.  Let me know if
>you object.
>
>
>
>3) In clause 17.1 (line 17) there is reference to a 'working guide' that
>I believe no longer exists.  I plan to change the reference to a 'web
>page' unless people object.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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.