Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment action item
Bruce,
I share the same concerns as you.
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
> Bruce Kraemer
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 6:09 AM
> To: Tony Jeffree
> Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment
> action item
>
> Tony,
> I have no argument with the intent. What I'm concerned about
> is the mechanism.
>
> One of the great shortfalls of all rules is that they a
> written with good intentions by the original authors and then
> mis-interpreted or subsequently mis-used because there is no
> guidance in the rule itself as to how it is to be applied. As
> you suggest, it seems reasonable for the EC to be interested
> in ensuring "that the right attention is paid to cross-WG
> issues & overall architecture". Is the proposed rule the best
> way to accomplish that?
>
> Bruce
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 9:30 AM
> To: Bruce Kraemer
> Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: 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.
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.