Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

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.