Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment action item
Bruce -
I would sincerely hope that the intent is NOT to get us into a major
outbreak of EC members making detailed comments on draft contents as
part of the EC review of a project - if they want to do that, then
they already have a means of doing it; either make comments on WG
ballots (anyone can do that, regardless of membership, and WGs have
to consider them), or join a Sponsor ballot group.
I believe the intent here is that the EC should be able to comment on
technical issues at a rather higher level - as Paul has said, in
order to ensure that the right attention is paid to cross-WG issues &
overall architecture, but also to ensure that projects meet their
commitments as documented in PAR and 5C documents.
Regards,
Tony
At 14:07 09/06/2008, Bruce Kraemer wrote:
>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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.