Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Procedures
Al,
Was there a specific problem or concern that prompted the Ad-Hoc
group to go about suggesting these changes?
mike
-------------------------------------------
Michael Takefman tak@cisco.com
Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Al Petrick
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 6:07 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG
> Voting Procedures
>
> Mike/Steve
>
>
>
> Both of you have very good questions!
>
>
>
> Let me try to help clarify the issues that were raised by
> Steve and yourself, as I was worked with a small Ad-Hoc group
> inside 802.11 that came up with the suggested recommended
> changes. This should help clarify your concerns.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> -Al
>
>
>
> Clarification: Clause 7.2.4.3;
>
> * The WG Chair (as well as the TG,SC,SG Chairs)
> decides what is
> technical and non-technical wrt issues and motions on the
> floor. This is the first determination. Procedure is the next step.
>
> o It was recommended to change "procedural" to "non-technical"
> because the chair then applies parliamentary rulings to
> motions on the floor to seek proper "procedure". Some motions
> under parliamentary procedure require 50% approval, while
> others require, 2/3 or a majority approval.
>
> * Sentence: "Technical issues are those that can impact the
> substance of "output documents" of the Working Group.
>
> o "Output documents" are those that leave the WG and
> passed on to
> the IEEE 802 hierarchy seeking approval or to bodies
> (liaisons, stds organizations, or other entities) outside the
> IEEE. Such output documents include specifically PARs,
> Drafts, but may include for example letters to outside bodies
> that has technical content (substance). For this reason,
> "Output documents" was specified.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mike Takefman (tak)
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 4:46 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG
> Voting Procedures
>
>
>
> Mat
>
>
>
> I also vote NO and I'll come up with a list of my
>
> concerns. But reading Steve's comments made me think and
>
> I feel it necessary to comment immediately.
>
>
>
> While I agree with Steve that "output document" seems vague,
>
> the set "PAR and Draft" is merely a subset of useful documents
>
> that a WG or TAG could produce that require 75% approval (IMO).
>
>
>
> WG's produce liaisons both internal to 802 and external to IEEE,
>
> press releases etc. So an output document (to me, and I'd think
>
> the majority of people), means anything that leaves the WG, and
>
> I see that as the minimum acceptable set.
>
>
>
> WGs produce documents for their own internal use that
>
> are technical in nature and affect a draft and so I'd personnaly
>
> want to see the bar set at 75% for those documents too.
>
>
>
> For example, in 802.17 there was a lot of discussion on simulation
>
> requirements and methods for benchmarking proposals. The phrase
>
> output document doesn't include a document that would specify how
>
> simulations should be run, nor the minimum acceptable performance,
>
> yet it is clearly an important document, technical in nature
> as it will
>
> affect the draft.
>
>
>
> Imagine the host of appeals that would insue if such a document was
>
> classified as procedural as it wasn't an output document and then
>
> someone objects to the draft moving forward when its technical
>
> content was based on simulation requirements that couldn't achieve
>
> 75% concensus.
>
>
>
> Our old language was much more open, but that might not be a bad thing
>
> since once you try to restrict things, you end up risking creating
>
> the wrong set of limitations.
>
>
>
> I'll think some more about a better phrase then merely output document
>
> but I think a more inclusive term would be better.
>
>
>
> mike
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Michael Takefman tak@cisco.com
>
> Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Systems
>
> Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
>
> 3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
>
> voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>
> > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 3:26 PM
>
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG
>
> > Voting Procedures
>
> >
>
> > Mat,
>
> >
>
> > I vote NO but will change my vote to YES if the
>
> > following changes are made.
>
> >
>
> > 1. In Section 7.2.4.3 (Chair's Function) change "output documents
>
> > of the Working Group" to "either a PAR or a draft." The
>
> > phrase "output documents" is too vague for my taste. Since
>
> > those are the two output documents of a working group I think
>
> > it is better to list them than to use such a vague phrase.
>
> >
>
> > 2. In Section 7.2.4.2.1 drop the sentence "Non-technical motions,
>
> > when allowed, are determined in accordance with parliamentary
>
> > procedure." Once again the phrase "parliamentary procedure"
>
> > is way too vague. If the working groups want to describe how
>
> > they hold these non-technical motions using specific language
>
> > that would be fine, but this vague statement does not work.
>
> >
>
> > 3. In Section 7.2.4.2.1 drop the phrase "at least." A majority is
>
> > well defined and does not require that phrase, since it is
>
> > included within the definition.
>
> >
>
> > Just one observation. In this document the section
>
> > entitled "Chair's Function" is numbered 7.2.4.3, but that
>
> > section number is also used later. I thin there is a small
>
> > typo in the section number.
>
> >
>
> > 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: 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.
>
> >
>
> > ----------
>
> > 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.
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.