Re: [802SEC] Question regarding OM 3.1.1c--WG and TAG charters
Paul -
I believe the charter of a WG is pretty clear - it is embodied in
their past and current PARs and standards. I don't believe that we
need anything more than that.
Regards,
Tony
At 13:05 11/06/2008, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>All,
>
>I was reviewing the thread associated with the scope of EC oversight
>and the phrase "as it relates to their charters" caught my
>attention. We don't have written WG and TAG "charters" on file. Should we?
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
>To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:56 PM
>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.