[802SEC] Review of editing process followed for the P&P Revision titled 'SEC Electronic Ballot' in 2003

["Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)" <matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM>]

Fellow EC'ers,

 

Recently there has been a lot of traffic concerning a P&P revision that
was improperly edited several years back.  That editing has since been
superseded, and I've already provided my take on how to deal with its
impact (consult with Paul and SA).  However, I wanted to provide
additional details on the editing process for that change with an eye
towards preventing such events in the future.  An outline of the events
is provided below, but here are a few observations beyond that.

 

My current process is to provide the updated document (with track
changes turned on) to the EC on the reflector.  However, the process
depends on eyeballs.  Even though a double check (and sometimes triple
check) myself, sometimes we are blind to our own mistakes.  Often I
receive little or no response when I put out a change, so after about a
month, I usually ask Bob O'Hara to post the final document.  Even then,
if problems are found, the editing can be corrected and updates posted.

 

I'm not sure this is the best method to ensure error free editing, and
would welcome comment. We also need to consider how we deal with
decisions we make based on incorrectly edited P&P.  I suggest this be a
topic at the next 'Rules' meeting.

 

Regards to all,

 

Mat

 

Editing process followed for the P&P Revision titled 'SEC Electronic
Ballot' in 2003

 

Base LMSC Rules (P&P) for the Change was the 12 July 2002 Revision

 

12/07/2002        'SEC TAG' rules change approved

                                    Geoff was lead on that change

                                    Not incorporated until after 3/2003
session

03/14/2003        'SEC Electronic Ballot' rules change approved

03/14/2003        'SEC Operating Rules title' rules change approved

03/28/2003        E-mail from Bill Quackenbush to myself confirming
error in 03/14/2003 minutes

                                    Bill agreed with my prior e-mail
(since lost) indicating that clause '3.6.3' should have read clause
'3.6.5'

                                    Shows I was clearly aware of
specific text edits included in the approval motion

05/06/2003        E-mail from Mat to Paul, Bob O, Bill Q, and Carl
asking them to review updated P&P in Rev Mode

                                    Updated P&P included TAG, Electronic
Ballot, and Op Rules title changes

                                    Asked these individuals to review as
they were the most intimate with the changes (helped draft)

                                    In retrospect, the editing error in
question is clearly apparent in the file provided

05/08/2003        E-mail from Paul detailing several corrections to
draft provided

                                    Corrections did not include error
currently in question

06/08/2003        Reminder to 'proof readers' that I've had little
response and plan to post updated P&P

07/08/2003        Formally asked Bob O to post updated P&P

                                    Noted that Roger has asked for book
marks to be included but was willing to wait

08/04/2003        Provided updated version of P&P with bookmarks (no
other changes)

 

From this point on, the erroneous editing becomes a permanent part of
our P&P.  We make key decision based on it, and even go so far as to
formally interpret it.  Finally on 03/18/2005 we pass a P&P revision
that supersedes the erroneous editing, and it falls out of our P&P.  

 

 

 

 

 

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.