[802SEC] FW: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Procedures
Comments from an 802.16 member.
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
_____
From: Phillip Barber [mailto:pbarber@broadbandmobiletech.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 9:11 AM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Subject: Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG
Voting Procedures
Matt,
Thank you for your considered reply.
Unfortunately, ANSI uses only vague language in its guiding principles
and relies upon the ANSI compliant organizations to construct more
appropriate, SDO specific language. So incorporation by reference is
out. But I am glad that we agree that providing language in the 802 P&P
consistent with our IEEE-SA and ANSI certification obligations is a
worthy, even necessary endeavor.
I do feel inclusion of a definition of 'Technical' matters in the 802
P&P is absolutely required. Too often Chairs are left to their own
interpretation, without benefit of guidance, as to what constitutes
'Technical' matters and what are 'Procedural' matters. While the Chairs
do an invaluable job 'protecting' the Membership from becoming mired in
procedural minutiae, freeing the group to focus on resolving Technical
matters, on occasion Members are inappropriately restrained from making
what the general 802 Membership would historically agree are Technical
decisions. Because of a lack of guidance on this matter in the 802 P&P,
I have two concerns: inconsistent application, variance in determination
of what is Technical and what is Procedural within groups, across
groups, and over time; and, in the absence of any guiding language,
essentially arbitrary determination of what is Technical and what is
Procedural, creating the opportunity for both error and abuse. Both
outcomes seem to me to be at odds with the IEEE-SA and ANSI guiding
principles.
As far as 'what is technical', no doubt there will be differences of
opinion. I am sure a healthy debate will provide an opportunity for
different views to be aired. I can only give me own opinion based on my
understanding of the IEEE-SA and ANSI guiding principles. Given that 802
is an SDO whose purpose is to create international technical standards
documents, Members have the expectation that they will play an integral
role in the creation of these standards. Pursuant to that understanding,
Members should have the right to discuss and vote on any matter that
proposes material changes to published technical material that defines
those standards.
As for a project authorization being a technical matter, I offer these
thoughts: A project authorization is essentially a contract between the
group contracting to do the standards development work, the sponsoring
organization that assures conformance of the standardization activity to
accepted/certified processes, and the general pool of interested and
competent professionals that either agree to participate in the work or
acquiesce to allow the work to be performed.
By definition, anything that defines or constrains the topicality or
scope of a project likewise constrains the content. Such constraint
invariably is technical in nature, limiting the nature and type of
technical material that is 'within scope' of the project. I believe the
guiding principles require that Members have a right to make decisions
that constrain their work.
Also, ANSI does make it very clear that new project creation, or
modification of the authorization for any existing project must be well
publicized with ample opportunity for parties to assess their interest
in participation, especially to gain or retain Membership.
The definition for 'Technical' matters that I attempted to craft was
intended to include PARs as Technical matters.
Thanks,
Phillip Barber
----- Original Message -----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
<mailto:matthew.sherman@baesystems.com>
To: Phillip Barber <mailto:pbarber@broadbandmobiletech.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 6:57 AM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot
+++ WG Voting Procedures
Hi Phil,
Thanks for the comments. In general I have no problem with what
you suggest. I note that this is a document that has evolved over 20+
years, and I can't say that it always stays in lock step with ANSI.
However, the whole point of these revisions is to improve the document,
and if we've fallen out of step with ANSI it makes sense to catch up.
A couple of comments. In general, I prefer to reference text in
another document (if it is publicly available) rather than add it. It
is interesting that while I think we strive to be ANSI accredited (at
least I think we do) I don't see any ANSI governance referenced in our
order of precedence. Perhaps we should add something there.
Also, I don't think everyone agrees on what it 'technical'.
I've been told by some people is that 'technical' is anything that can
impact the definition of a compliant implementation. You can 'stretch'
that to say for example that a PAR vote is technical since it broadly
influences what content can be in a draft. However I'm not sure that
your definition and this one are the same.
I welcome further comments.
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
_____
From: Phillip Barber [mailto:pbarber@broadbandmobiletech.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 5:01 AM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Subject: Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot
+++ WG Voting Procedures
Matt,
I was hoping you could educate me.
Where in the 802 P&P does it affirm the rights of Members, per
IEEE-SA and ANSI guiding principles? The rights under '7.2.3.4 Rights'
seem inadequate, not in the least because they do not guarantee
timeliness of notification, transparency of operation, or the right of
Members to participate and vote on the technical matters of the
organization--the last item being a most glaring omission. The rights of
Members as proscribed in 7.2.3.4 seem a shadow to those assured under
IEEE-SA and ANSI.
What I am looking for is some sort of language that specifies
that no action of a WG or TAG Chair, or of the 802 EC shall 1) infringe
upon Members (and, under ANSI, non-Members) rights to be informed in a
transparent and timely manner of the activity of the organization,
unless such disclosure would violate legal requirements or due process,
2) deny non-Members their proscribed opportunity to become Members, or
arbitrarily or capriciously rescind or remove Membership, 3) deny
Members the opportunity to discuss and vote on the technical matters of
the organization, where technical matters are defined as any matter
intended to originate or change--in a material way--a standard document
or project authorization.
I welcome your thoughts.
Thanks,
Phillip Barber
----- Original Message -----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
<mailto:matthew.sherman@baesystems.com>
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Cc: Al Petrick <mailto:apetrick@widefi.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 10:30 AM
Subject: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision
Ballot +++ WG Voting Procedures
FYI
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: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 11:20 AM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++
WG Voting
Procedures
Mat,
I vote approve.
My editorial non-binding comments on the ballot:
1) 7.2.3.4.g Rights--upon reading this one could take
the interpretation
that the combined membership of the WGs (exclusive of
TAGs) could force
resolution implementation. What is meant, I believe, is
the combined
membership of WGs and TAGs. This doesn't require a
change--I am just
alerting you to a change that may be needed in the
future.
2) 7.2.4.2.2 -- I would remove the specific sub-clause
reference to the
IEEE-SA SBOM - leave it general so we don't have to
worry about how SBOM
may
be restructured
3) 7.2.4.4 -- I would remove the specific sub-clause
reference to the
IEEE
CS SAB P&P--leave it general, or better yet, refer to
the appropriate
IEEE
SA document to eliminate the dependancy on CS SAB.
Regards,
--Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)"
<matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM>
To: <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 11:16 PM
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.
----------
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.