Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results +++ Editorial 2
Mat,
That is interesting. So since the ballot failed due to low
return ratio and not strong opposition there is a likelihood it will
pass during the "real vote" during the Friday closing EC meeting.
I always wondered why we voted so many times on a rules change
(once to start the rules change, the electron ballot and then the final
vote). So now I see how the electronic ballot is intended to see who
has opposition and what they concerns are so we can make adjustments
before the real vote at the closing EC meeting.
Thanks for your help.
See you and others in our wonder city of San Diego next month.
Regards,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 10:28 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results +++ Editorial
2
LMSC P&P ballots are kind of an exception because the reality is that
the ballot itself really doesn't count. It is more a way of ferreting
out all the comments. The only vote that really counts on the Friday
vote in the Plenary session. Based on that the P&P revision sinks or
swims.
What happens now is that I take (or whoever is running the ballot takes)
the comments input and develop resolutions that hopefully make everyone
happy. If they don't, I guess the P&P revision will fail the vote in
Plenary.
The reason I get concerned by low participation is that I can't resolve
comments if I don't know about them. People tend to show up at the vote
at the Friday EC meeting and first start surfacing issues. There is no
way to address them in real time. That's why we require this long 4
month plus process to make a P&P revision.
Let me know if there are other questions.
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, NES
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 12:51 PM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA); STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results +++ Editorial
2
Matt,
So I have a procedural question. Since this ballot failed does
that mean it cannot be voted on during the July plenary? If so, and
since there was no major opposition, how do we proceed in a case like
this? Do we hold another ballot after the July plenary?
Thanks,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 7:46 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results +++ Editorial 2
Dear EC members,
Below you will find the final results on this ballot. Note that while
the ballot has no disapprove votes, it would fail due to lack of
response at the final vote. Please let me know if you see any errors in
the accounting.
I will develop proposed resolutions to the comments and hold an LMSC P&P
review session Sunday night before the plenary.
Thanks & Regards,
Mat
Voters DNV DIS APP ABS Comments Provided?
---------------------------------------------------------
00 Paul Nikolich APP Yes
01 Mat Sherman APP Yes
02 Pat Thaler DNV
03 Buzz Rigsbee DNV
04 Bob O'Hara APP
05 John Hawkins DNV
06 Tony Jeffree APP
07 Bob Grow DNV
08 Stuart Kerry APP
09 Bob Heile DNV
10 Roger Marks APP Yes
11 Mike Takefman DNV
12 Mike Lynch DNV
13 Steve Shellhammer APP Yes
14 Jerry Upton DNV
15 Vivek Gupta APP
16 Carl Stevenson APP
---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---
TOTALS DNV DIS APP ABS
total: -08- -00- -09- -00-
Ballot Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
John Barr [john.barr@motorola.com] Mon
5/1/2006 4:15 PM
In the P&P Revision Ballot of 060430 on page 31, line 35 a reference is
made to item 6 above. What is item 6?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Paul Nikolich [paul.nikolich@att.net] Thu
5/4/2006 7:44 PM
I have one question on the editorial changes in section 7.1.6.2: why
did we make the change to "LMSC Recording Secretary" from "EC Recording
Secretary"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortel.com] Tue
5/9/2006 12:25 AM
I don't think this is substantial, in that it would more accurately
reflect reality.
Change:
Page 12, Line 15, from: "LMSC standards are developed within a Working
Group 15 (WG) or Technical Advisory Group (TAG) (see Figure 2)."
To:
"LMSC standards are developed within a Working Group (WG). A Technical
Advisory Group (TAG) produces LMSC Recommended Practices or technical
recommendations regarding LMSC issues (see Figure 2)."
Page 7, line 38: "WG" should be "WGs" (also several other places too).
Geoff
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Shellhammer, Steve [sshellha@QUALCOMM.COM] Tue
5/9/2006 1:01 PM
I believe working groups also produce recommended practices and guides
sometime. The text implies that if you want to produce a recommended
practice it should be done in a TAG. I think we should make it clear
that a working group can produce a standard, a recommended practice or a
guide; while a TAG can produce a recommended practice or a guide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Geoff Thompson [gthompso@NORTEL.COM]
Steve
At 10:01 AM 5/9/2006 , Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
> I believe working groups also produce recommended practices and
guides > sometime. The text implies that if you want to produce a
recommended > practice it should be done in a TAG.
You are correct. My text didn't quite do the job.
> I think we should make it clear
> that a working group can produce a standard, a recommended practice
or a > guide; while a TAG can produce a recommended practice or a
guide.
I think so too. Although, a staff member would probably say that
"standard" covers standards, recommended practices and guides.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortel.com] Sun
5/28/2006 5:49 PM
[Addresses John Barr note]
Text from an old version:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LMSC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REVISED JULY 16, 2004
FILE: LMSC_P&P_JULY_2004_R0.DOC
8.2.3 Interim Session Financial Reporting A WG/TAG or WG/TAG subgroup
shall prepare and submit all financial reports required by IEEE,
IEEE-SA, Computer Society and LMSC regulations on any of its interim
sessions for which fees were collected and that did not comply with all
of the following requirements.
1. The WG/TAG or WG/TAG subgroup was not the Host of the session.
2. The Host complied with the definition of a host in Section 6.2.1 of
these P&P.
3. Neither the WG/TAG or WG/TAG subgroup nor any of its officers had any
financial responsibility for the session including any deficit or
penalties.
4. Neither the WG/TAG or WG/TAG subgroup nor any of its officers handled
and/or had or exercised any control over any funds either received for
the session or disbursed to pay the expenses of the session including
penalties.
5. Neither the WG/TAG or WG/TAG subgroup nor any of its officers had
and/or exercised any decision authority over the disposition of any
surplus funds from the session.
6. Neither the WG/TAG or WG/TAG subgroup nor any of its officers have or
had any control over or beneficial interest in any surplus funds from
the session.
the case of an interim session that is hosted by a single non-IEEE
entity and for which fees are collected, the usual financial goal is for
the session to be non-deficit with a minimum surplus. A recommended way
of achieving this is for the Host to commit to a contribution to the
session and then reduce that contribution as required to minimize any
session surplus. It may be most convenient for the Host to not make the
contribution (transfer the funds) until the size of the contribution
needed to meet the non-deficit minimum surplus goal is known. If there
is a surplus, the Host may retain it or dispose of it in any manner it
chooses that does not violate item 6 above. 8.3 Registration Policy In
order for an individual to become registered for a given
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) Sun 5/28/2006
10:58 PM
Paul,
Sorry for the very late reply. The 'formal title' for the position is
LMSC Recording Secretary (See 7.1.2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Roger B. Marks [r.b.marks@ieee.org] Mon 5/29/2006 8:10
AM
Comment 1: The current P&P says "There are two types of votes in the WG"
and then proceeds to list three types of votes. The third is the Roll
Call Vote. This should listed not as an independent third type but
instead as a subset of "Voting at Meeting". Though this material would
not be changed by the document under ballot, it is an editorial issue
that could be addressed in the ballot.
Remedy: Renumber Subclause 7.2.4.2.3 ("Roll Call Votes") as 7.2.4.2.1.1,
under "Voting at Meeting".
Comment 2: With the changes, "WG" becomes both singular and plural.
Likewise "TG" and "SG". This makes the writing significantly more crude
and unpleasant. It also has the potential to introduce ambiguity. For
example, "A petition signed by two-thirds of the combined members of all
WG forces the EC implement the resolution."
is less effective than the original sentence.
Remedy: When plural, change WG => WGs, TG => TAGs, and SG => SGs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, NES
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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.