[802SEC] +++ Final LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results +++ Editorial
Dear EC members,
This ballot has now closed. Below you will see the final status of the
ballot. All comments received to date are compiled at the end. Thanks to
all who participated. Please let me know if you see any errors.
The ballot fails due to lack of response. More importantly there seems
to be general confusion over what is being balloted. What is balloted
are the changes in the original ballot document, not my 'more extensive'
changes which were submitted as comments on the ballot.
I still have time to mull this one over before the comment resolution,
so I won't say much now. One thing that is clear is that 'editorial'
changes aren't always considered editorial (or perhaps correct) by
everyone. So sometimes it is worth balloting. I plan to initiate some
discussion on the reflector prior to the comment resolution, and provide
an updated text for discussion at the upcoming comment resolution
telecon. As a reminder the comment resolution telecon will be held:
February 23rd, 2006 at 12 PM EST
I will provide dial in info prior to the telecon.
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 APP YES
05 John Hawkins DNV
06 Tony Jeffree APP
07 Bob Grow DNV YES
08 Stuart Kerry DNV
09 Bob Heile DNV
10 Roger Marks APP YES
11 Mike Takefman DNV
12 Mike Lynch DNV
13 Steve Shellhammer DNV
14 Jerry Upton DNV
15 Ajay Rajkumar DNV
16 Carl Stevenson DIS YES
---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---
TOTALS DNV DIS APP ABS
total: -13- -01- -03- -00-
Ballot Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Roger B. Marks [r.b.marks@ieee.org] Wed 2/1/2006 9:32
PM
I would like to be clear that I am voting on the changes as balloted. I
am not voting on Mat's proposed "more extensive" changes. I think that
we have a very hazy picture here as to what we are voting upon. This is
a bad thing.
I also think that the "more extensive" proposal goes too far beyond the
changes approved for ballot in November.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com] Wed 2/1/2006 2:14
PM
I must vote Disapprove. Replacing TAG with WG is unacceptable.
If the question were approriately divided, I could vote to approve some
something (e.g., Plenary -> plenary).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Bob O'Hara (boohara) [boohara@cisco.com] Wed 2/1/2006 10:56
AM
I vote approve, with the following comments to be resolved:
1. Use of "WG" limits much of the policies to not apply to a TAG.
Please correct this so that either "WG" is defined to mean "working
group or technical advisory group" or replace "WG" with "WG or TAG"
where appropriate.
2. in clause 19, "m" and "yy" are defined, but never used. Please
delete these definitions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Carl R. Stevenson [wk3c@wk3c.com] Wed 2/1/2006 9:40
AM
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).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
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.