Re: [802SEC] FW: [802-11WG] FW: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Procedures
Carl,
I'm not sure I understand your point, but if there are specific
modifications you would prefer, please state them.
Thanks,
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE Systems Network Enabled Solutions (NES)
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl R. Stevenson [mailto:wk3c@wk3c.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 7:12 PM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA); STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] FW: [802-11WG] FW: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision
Ballot +++ WG Voting Procedures
I think there is either a mis-wording or a mis-understanding.
My understanding is that the P&P sepcify that the WG Chair decides
what's
technical and what's procedural, and may rule on procedural matters or
may
choose to put a procedural matter to a simple majority vote of the body
at
his/her discretion.
Regards,
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew
> J. (US SSA)
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 2:15 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] FW: [802-11WG] FW: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P
> Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Procedures
>
> FYI, Comments from an 802.11 member.....
>
> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> Senior Member Technical Staff
> BAE Systems Network Enabled Solutions (NES)
> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stuart J. Kerry [mailto:stuart@ok-brit.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 2:06 PM
> To: 'Matthew Fischer'; Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> Cc: apetrick@widefi.com; hworstell@research.att.com
> Subject: RE: [802-11WG] FW: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision
> Ballot +++ WG Voting Procedures
>
>
> Matthew,
>
> Thank you for providing your comments on the 802 LMSC P&P
> revision, with this email I am forwarding you email to Matt
> Sherman. I look forward to his early reply.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> / Stuart
>
> _______________________________
>
> Stuart J. Kerry
> Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG
>
> c/o: Philips Semiconductors, Inc.
> 1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
> San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
> United States of America.
>
> +1 (408) 474-7356 - Phone
> +1 (408) 474-5343 - Fax
> +1 (408) 348-3171 - Cell
> eMail: stuart.kerry@philips.com
> Web: www.semiconductors.com
> _______________________________
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Fischer [mailto:mfischer@broadcom.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 10:56 AM
> To: stuart@ok-brit.com
> Subject: RE: [802-11WG] FW: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision
> Ballot +++ WG Voting Procedures
>
>
>
> Stuart,
>
> Please forward the following comments to Matt.
>
>
> 1)
>
>
> 7.2.4.3 Chair's Function
>
> The Chair of the Working Group decides non-technical issues but may
> allow
> non-technical motions.
>
>
> * What is the meaning of the phrase: "decides non-technical issues"?
>
> Does this mean that the chair will determine the resolution of
> non-technical
> issues?
> If so, can this determination involve a vote of the WG?
> I believe that is the intent of the wording, but there is a
> problem with
> the
> sentence structure and terminology.
>
>
> The sentence is a bit confusing, because it mixes two different terms:
>
> A) it discusses "issues" - a very poorly defined term
> B) it discusses "motions" - a very well-defined term
>
> The sentence seems to link/confuse the two terms with the connective
> "but".
> By using "but" there is the appearance that "issues" and "motions" are
> the
> same.
>
> If this is true, then "issues" should be replaced with "motions."
>
> If this is NOT true, then there should be two sentences, or more in
> order to
> define what an "issue" is.
>
>
> E.g. I think that the following is what is really meant - and
> this seems
> like a much clearer set of statements:
>
>
> The Chair of the Working Group has the authority to decide the
> resolution of
> non-technical motions. The Chair of the Working Group may allow a vote
> of
> the Working Group in order to decide the resolution of a non-technical
> motion, but is not required to do so.
>
> (But wait - there's more...)
>
> 2)
>
> Remind me again why we changed the term "procedural" to
> "non-technical"
>
>
>
> 3)
>
> There are seemingly contradictory instructions regarding the
> determination
> as to the nature of a motion.
>
>
> I.e. there are two sentences:
>
>
> Technical issues are those that can impact the substance of output
> documents
> of the Working Group.
>
> The Working Group Chair decides which issues are technical.
>
>
> One sentence gives a definition of technical, and the other gives a
> different defintion, which is effectively - "technical is whatever the
> chair
> decides is technical."
>
> It cannot be both.
>
> I understand that the chair has the authority to make the
> decision, but
> this
> is not at all clear from the wording. The wording MUST include some
> hierarchy to indicate that this is the case. E.g.
>
>
>
> The Working Group Chair decides which motions are technical, using the
> general guideline that technical motions are those that can impact the
> substance of output documents of the Working Group.
>
>
>
> (But wait - there's more...)
>
>
> 4)
>
>
> The order of the sentences should be re-arranged:
>
> Here is the current ordering:
>
> 7.2.4.3 Chair's Function
>
> The Chair of the Working Group decides non-technical issues but may
> allow
> non-technical motions. Technical issues are those that can impact the
> substance of output documents of the Working Group. The Working Group
> members and the Chair decide technical issues by vote. The
> Working Group
> Chair decides which issues are technical.
>
>
> I would propose the following, which includes the previous
> two suggested
> changes as well:
>
>
> 7.2.4.3 Chair's Function
>
>
> The Chair of the Working Group has the authority to decide the
> resolution of
> non-technical motions. The Chair of the Working Group may allow a vote
> of
> the Working Group in order to decide the resolution of a non-technical
> motion, but is not required to do so.
>
> The Working Group members and the Chair decide technical
> issues by vote
> of
> the Working Group.
>
> The Working Group Chair decides which motions are technical, using the
> general guideline that technical motions are those that can impact the
> substance of output documents of the Working Group.
>
>
> Ok - so that's my complete suggested re-write of the paragraph.
>
>
>
> 5)
>
> 7.2.4.2.1 Voting at Meetings
>
>
> Note that the first sentence refers to a "technical vote" and
> the second
> sentence refers to a "non-technical motion". I am not
> certain of which
> term
> is incorrect, but one of them has to be.
>
>
> I'm going to make a guess...
>
> So in the first sentence of 7.2.4.2.1, I would change:
>
> A technical vote
>
> To
>
> A vote on a technical motion
>
>
> This language seems to match the language of the chair's authority to
> decide
> which motions are technical and which are non-technical. I.e.
> it is the
> MOTION which is technical or not. The vote is just a vote.
>
>
>
> 6)
>
> 7.2.4.2.2 Voting by Letter Ballots
>
> One instance of confirmation ballot was not changed - I suspect that
> this is
> because that occurrence refers to the Sponsor Group, and not
> the Working
> Group, correct?
>
> In any case, I would suggest making a few modifications to
> the language.
> I propose the following:
>
>
> To forward a draft standard or a revised standard to the Executive
> Committee
> for approval for Sponsor Ballot Group voting, a letter ballot
> requesting
> that the draft standard or revised standard be forwarded to the
> Executive
> Committee for approval for Sponsor Ballot Group voting must have been
> passed
> by the Working Group. In order for such a letter ballot to pass within
> the
> Working Group, a 75 percent approval is necessary with at least 50
> percent
> of the members voting. The 75 percent figure is computed only from the
> "Approve" and "Do Not Approve" votes of the letter ballot. Subsequent
> confirmation ballots to the Sponsor Ballot Group do not require
> Executive
> Committee approval.
>
>
> 7)
>
> 7.2.4.2.2 Voting by Letter Ballots
>
> In the second paragraph, I would consider changing the phrase
> "affirmative
> letter ballot" to "passing letter ballot".
>
> Either that, or go back to the first paragraph and change all
> instances
> of
> forms of the verb "pass" to the appropriate form of the verb "affirm".
>
>
> Note that in 7.2.4.4 (unrelated matters) the term for a successful
> ballot
> operation is "pass" - and in this instance, it is "affirm" - I did not
> look
> any farther than this document, and the score is 1 to 1 --
> maybe in the
> larger document, there are more instances, and the issue can
> be settled
> according to precedent. Otherwise, I'd just say, flip a coin and make
> them
> all the same.
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthew Fischer
> Nice Guy
> 408 543 3370 office
> 650 796 9206 mobile
> mfischer@broadcom.com
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ***** IEEE stds-802-11 List *****
> > [mailto:STDS-802-11@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Stuart J. Kerry
> > Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 7:12 PM
> > To: STDS-802-11@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: [802-11WG] FW: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot
> > +++ WG Voting Procedures
> >
> > --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group
> > Reflector ---<P>
> >
> >
> >
> > 802.11 Members,
> >
> > Please see the attached LMSC P&P revision ballot titled "WG
> > Voting Procedures". Please provide me any comments by 1
> > October so that I can forward them to Matt.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > / Stuart
> >
> > _______________________________
> >
> > Stuart J. Kerry
> > Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG
> >
> > c/o: Philips Semiconductors, Inc.
> > 1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
> > San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
> > United States of America.
> >
> > +1 (408) 474-7356 - Phone
> > +1 (408) 474-5343 - Fax
> > +1 (408) 348-3171 - Cell
> > eMail: stuart.kerry@philips.com
> > Web: www.semiconductors.com
> > _______________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew
> > J. (US SSA)
> > Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 8:16 PM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> > Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting
> > Procedures
> >
> > Dear EC members,
> >
> >
> >
> > Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision
> > ballot titled 'WG Voting Procedures'. This ballot was
> > approved at the Friday July 21st, 2006 EC meeting. The text
> > is identical to that presented at the meeting. The purpose
> > and rationale for the ballot are as given in the attached
> > ballot document.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ballot Duration: 9/3/2006 - 10/3/2006 @ 11:59 PM EDT
> >
> >
> >
> > WG/TAG chairs, please distribute this P&P revision ballot to
> > your groups, and invite them to comment through you. Please
> > direct any comments on this revision to the reflector,
> > myself, and Al Petrick (
> > apetrick@widefi.com) for collection. A ballot resolution
> > teleconference will be scheduled for sometime prior to the
> > November 2006 Plenary Session.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks & Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Mat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> > Senior Member Technical Staff
> > BAE Systems Network Enabled Solutions (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.
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > _________________
> >
> > IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT
> > send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this
> > valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.
> >
> > SELF SERVICE OPTION:
> > Point your Browser to -
> > http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and
> > then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you
> > require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.
> >
> > Further information can be found at:
> > http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > _________________
> >
>
> ----------
> 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.