Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Dear EC Members: Attached please find a proposed resolution for this ballot. ALL OF THE CHANGES ARE ON PAGE 1! Everything else in the ballot is identical to what was originally balloted. Please review the material on page 1. If this will change your vote in anyway, please let me know. If you did not vote on this the first time around, please let me know how you will vote so I have an accurate assessment on whether or not this revision ballot will pass as is. Note that while I will hold a 'P&P Review" session Sunday before the plenary, it is my intent not to make any further changes to the ballots in process unless it is clear they will fail. I find it difficult to gain consensus on changes during the plenary week, so I don't plan to make any unless absolutely necessary. The primary focus of the Sunday Night P&P Review will be forward looking towards new ballots and issues. I will have a separate e-mail on the agenda for that meeting shortly. Regards, Mat Matthew Sherman, Ph.D. Senior Member Technical Staff BAE SYSTEMS, NES Office: +1 973.633.6344 email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com _____ From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 10:46 PM To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org Subject: +++ 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.
802.0-Editorial_2_-_LMSC_P&P_Revision_Ballot_proposed_resolution_060628_r0.pdf