Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment action item
James et al,
While I can agree that technical review is good I disagree with the
proposed method for accomplishing it.
If the intent of the new language is to allow the EC members to comment
on the draft contents then it would be far more reasonable to revise the
P&P to include all EC members as part of the WG ballot pool. This, in
reality, is what the proposed P&P revision suggests.
Using the standard ballot comment/revision process would allow the WG to
consider those comments as part of the comment resolution process and be
far less disruptive.
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 5:29 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment action
item
All
I agree with Geoff here. The EC should be able to ask technical
questions about the draft, particularly as it relates to the 5Cs. Any
discussion of coexistence, would necessarily involve a technical
discussion.
I would find it unlikely that a majority of the EC would delve into a
detailed technical review of the draft. Nevertheless, the members of
the EC should not be prevented from considering potential technical
issues as they relate to the EC's role as sponsor.
Suppose a WG submitted a draft that had an obvious technical hole (e.g.,
in situation A perform action B but B is not defined in the draft), but
passed it anyway figuring they would "fix it in Sponsor ballot". In
this case, the EC should refuse to forward it and ask the WG to complete
their work.
I would imagine that these instances would be rare and would become even
more rare if it was known that the EC might refuse to pass on clearly
flawed drafts.
James Gilb
Puthenkulam, Jose P wrote:
> Dear Geoff,
>
> I agree with the intent for the EC to have more technical oversight
over
> the WG's drafts. I also applaud you as the sincere crusader, in terms
of
> doing what's best for our body.
>
> At the same time, I feel when a motion is called for a vote, to do
> justice in terms of a technical review of hundreds of pages of a WG
> draft standard without adequate planning, time and in some cases
> technical background, it will be difficult. So the rule change as
> proposed does not really accomplish the intent you are after.
>
> Maybe one approach might be to allow all EC members to submit comments
> in the Sponsor Ballot with some special designation. As this could be
> treated as mandatory co-ordination, the comments could be dealt with
by
> the WGs with more seriousness.
>
> The sad situation we are in, is not something we can fix, just by
> changing this rule. Because, I see documents that have barely 75%
> approval passing the EC whereas, documents even with 90+% approval not
> necessarily making it. So with this rule change, I'm highly skeptical
> that we will accomplish much. But we might surely create more hurdles
> for the development process, we never intended to create, especially
> when we walk down the path of interpreting this change.
>
> thanks & best regards,
> jose
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortel.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 3:22 PM
> To: Puthenkulam, Jose P
> Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment
> action item
>
>
> Jose-
>
> I believe that you are incorrect.
>
> I do not think that:
>
> "The IEEE Sponsor ballot is the place outside the WG for
> engaging technically and addressing all comments including
architectural
> consistency issues etc and matters the EC is interested in
overseeing."
>
> When a member of the EC participates in an 802 Sponsor Ballot
> he/she does so as an individual. The IEEE-SA has no special category
for
> those of us who are responsible for technical oversight. Further, any
> comment that a member of the EC might put in as part of their
> fulfillment of their oversight responsibility would be dealt with in a
> forum that has no responsibility for anything other than satisfying
> their own project wishes.
>
> The members of the EC as a collective entity have a
> responsibility to ensure that the proposed draft has fulfilled any
> promises that were made in the 5 Criteria or in terms of meeting their
> responsibilities to be a "good member" of the 802 family.
>
> 802 has done a miserable job of fulfilling this responsibility
> over the years. That is, however, no reason for us to write that
> responsibility out of our rules. It must remain procedurally
acceptable
> to bring this sort of issue up at the EC when a Working Group has
failed
> to do its job adequately. It is already an immense burden to get the
EC
> to act on such an issue as the majority is generally inclined to let
> other working groups do anything that they want. There is no reason to
> increase that burden by block it with a "procedural only" rule.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Geoff
>
> At 10:50 AM 6/2/2008 , Puthenkulam, Jose P wrote:
> Dear Paul, All,
>
> I've some thoughts to share on this.
>
> During the conf. call I did hear someone mention that, for
> technical comments the EC members should participate in the Sponsor
> Ballots or in some cases WG ballots also as technical experts. I think
> that is most appropriate way to engage technically with regards to the
> technical content of the WG drafts.
>
> Here is my rationale for this:
>
> 1.During a motion to move the WG draft to the sponsor ballot
> stage, if technical comments get generated by the EC, then we do not
> have an effective process to deal with them other than the WG letter
> ballot itself. So we should avoid creating more work than necessary
> here.
>
> 2.The IEEE Sponsor ballot is the place outside the WG for
> engaging technically and addressing all comments including
architectural
> consistency issues etc and matters the EC is interested in overseeing.
>
> 3.So while I very much feel the EC members should have some
> technical oversight over WG activities including content of the
drafts,
> I think that oversight should be undertaken as part of the existing
> procedures we have
>
> - Approval of PARs
> - Sponsor ballots
> - WG letter ballots when EC members are also WG members and
> can participate
>
> So I feel when a motion is made at the EC to forward the WG
> draft to sponsor ballot, may not be the time for the EC members to
> engage in technical review of the content. Instead the focus should be
> the review of the WG ballot procedures and comment resolutions
including
> approval rate, disaapproves etc.
>
> So maybe we should leave the existing wording for OM 3.1.1 as
> is. However, maybe some other place we could add some clarity in terms
> of the technical oversight responsibility if it is not there already.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Thanks & Best Regards,
> jose
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> > Paul Nikolich
> > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:56 AM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment
> action item
> >
> > Mat,
> >
> > Per today's call, I had the action to provide alternative
> > wording to the OM 3.1.1.e "Examine and approve WG draft
> > standards for proper submission to Sponsor ballot group; not
> > for technical content.
> >
> > I suggest the deletion of "; not for technical content"
> >
> > Implementing the deletion maintains consistency with the OM
> > 3.1.1.c "Provide procedural and, if necessary, TECHNICAL
> > GUIDANCE to the WG and TAG as it relates to their charters."
> > (emphasis added)
> >
> > Altough the 'technical guidance' component of the EC funtions
> > tends to be secondary to procedural guidance, it is an
> > important component, especially when trying to maintain
> > architectural consistency across a Sponsor which grows to the
> > size and breadth of 802.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --Paul
> >
> > ----------
>
>
>
> ----------
> 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.