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



Based on the comments, I'm not convinced this one is "ready for prime time."

Disapprove (at least until all comments are addressed in a new version that
can be studied).

Carl
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) 
> [mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:05 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] +++ Current LMSC P&P Revision Ballot 
> Results +++ Editorial
> 
> 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.