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



Roger -

At 15:30 07/09/2006, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>Tony,
>
>Of the items you suggested should be on the 75% list, several of them
>are already addressed by existing P&P clauses that specify 75%:
>         9.1 Procedure for Establishing a Directed Position
>         7.2.4.4 Removal of Working Group Chairs or Vice Chairs
>         14.2 Procedure for Communication with Government Bodies

That's fine - what I suggested doesn't contradict that. However (and I have 
fleshed this out a bit in my comments - you will see them shortly) we could 
very easily make this all a lot clearer just by saying that there is only 
one type of "voting in (WG) meetings" and that it requires 75%. Then there 
would be no need to re-state the 75% threshold everywhere.


>The procedure for liaisons does not specify 75%:
>         14.1 Procedure for Coordination with Other Standards Bodies

I believe that should be 75%.


>I don't think the threshold for meeting minutes is currently
>established.

Similarly, I think that should be 75%. If 49% of my WG (or even 95% come to 
that) didn't want to approve the minutes, then I would suspect that there 
might just be something wrong with them.

Regards,
Tony.


>Roger
>
>
>On Sep 7, 2006, at 05:12 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>
>>Steve -
>>
>>PARs and drafts are NOT the only output documents of a WG. We also
>>generate liaisons and position papers to other organizations, and
>>meeting minutes, for example; I believe that motions approving
>>these are rightly considered to be technical motions also.
>>
>>I agree that "output documents" is vague, but the way to fix that
>>is to add a definition of what the list of things that constitute
>>"output documents" actually is, and then use the term. However, the
>>list of things that need to be decided by a "technical" (75%
>>approval) vote of the WG is ABSOLUTELY NOT IMHO restricted to
>>output documents; for example, a motion to impose a directed
>>position on a Chair, or a motion to remove a Chair from office,
>>should very definitely be considered to be "technical" votes as
>>opposed to procedural (decided by the Chair) matters! So I think
>>the fundamental problem with this change to defining the
>>"procedural/technical" distinction only in terms of output
>>documents is that in doing so, there is a class of decisions that
>>must be made by the WG that fall outside the (current) definition
>>of "Technical" and that should have been included.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Tony
>>
>>At 20:26 06/09/2006, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
>>>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.