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.