Re: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
Bruce -
Please do.
Regards,
Tony
At 15:54 17/06/2008, Bruce Kraemer wrote:
>Tony,
>
>You've raised a number of points that I accept going forward and would
>certainly pledge to avoid any repeat offences.
>
>Much of what you refer to should be captured in what I might refer to as
>a "Chair's guide document" that collects standard practices that
>augment rules and procedures not otherwise covered in either the P&P or
>the OM.
>
>With your permission I'll take the material below and start a chapter on
>this topic for further consideration prior to or during the July
>plenary.
>
>Bruce
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
>Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:05 AM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
>
>I would agree that 802.11 should not be penalized in this instance;
>however, if we are granting an exception here it should be a one-time
>exception, period, and not a license for all of the newbie EC members
>to assume that they will be granted a one-time "get out of jail free"
>card.
>
>However, I would make a few observations about the process of
>submitting files for EC consideration:
>
>Firstly, in my understanding, it is the Chair's responsibility (and
>not the Recording Secretary's) to do any circulation that is required
>in the P&P. This is the only occasion that I can remember when a
>Chair has passed the problem over to the RS to execute; in reality,
>once he had the PDFs all James did was to circulate them as
>attachments to an email, which the .11 Chair could have done himself
>(but please see below!), so apart from increasing the RS's workload
>and causing the submission deadline to be missed, its not clear to me
>what value was added there.
>
>Secondly, there is no requirement anywhere in our P&P (nor should
>there be IMHO) stipulating PDF as the format for submissions. The P&P
>simply state that the PAR and 5C "...shall be circulated via the EC
>reflector...", so it isn't at all clear to me on what basis James
>made that stipulation.
>
>Thirdly, and as far as I am concerned, this goes for all materials
>that EC members need to circulate to each other, sending stuff as
>attachments to emails is a royal PIA for the recipients, especially
>for things like PARs and 5C's, or other materials where EC members
>need to make their own constituents aware of the material. 802.1's
>email reflector, for example, has a size limit on attachments as part
>of our (very successful) SPAM filtering measures. I also don't like
>gratuitously inflicting attachments of any size on members of the .1
>reflector; I know high speed access is commonplace these days, but
>some recipients (myself included) sometimes have to use low bandwidth
>network connections to access their email. So if I receive a file
>that has to be circulated to my WG, I end up posting it on my WG
>website, which is simply making more work for me. This also means
>that the unsolicited addition to my workload gets prioritized, and
>can fall off the bottom of the stack as a result. Far better, and a
>considerable courtesy to those that have to circulate the material
>elsewhere, is for the sender to post the material on their WG or the
>EC website and email the URL(s) to the EC. In fact, I would go as far
>as suggesting that we codify that as a requirement in our new
>operations manual. (Aside: There is a potential bottleneck with
>uploading to the EC reflector, as not all of us have upload access;
>however, it is worth noting that Luigi Napoli has recently
>implemented an uploads webpage for 802.1 that allows anyone to submit
>a file to an uploads subdirectory, and for the appropriate 802.1
>officer to be notified - see http://ieee802.org/cgi-bin/upload_8021.
>No reason why that shouldn't be done for the EC website, and have the
>EC reflector as the recipient of the notifications.)
>
>So I would respectfully request the .11 Chair to post the PAR and 5C
>files on the .11 website (in reality, my guess is that they were
>there already, and if not, they should be!) and then email the
>reflector with the URLs.
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>At 23:40 16/06/2008, Michael Lynch wrote:
> >James,
> >
> >I agree that .11 should not be penalized if the documents were
> >submitted to you on time.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: "James Gilb" <gilb@IEEE.ORG>
> >To: "STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> >Sent: 6/16/08 17:29
> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
> >
> >Pat
> >
> >Bruce sent me these on time, but I had a mix up in email and didn't get
> >them posted until today.
> >
> >I don't think 802.11 should be punished for my mistake.
> >
> >Bruce will follow up and post the 5 criteria.
> >
> >James Gilb
> >
> >Pat Thaler wrote:
> > > James,
> > >
> > > There is a problem. Our P&P have a specific procedure for approving
>new
> > > PARs (Clause 17). 17.2 contains the requirement:
> > >
> > > "Complete PARs shall be circulated via the EC email reflector to all
> > > Executive Committee members no less than 30 days prior to the day of
>the
> > > Opening Executive Committee meeting of an LMSC Plenary session."
> > >
> > > You sent this today, June 16. Our Opening EC meeting is July 14.
>That is
> > > 28 days prior, not the required 30 days. There is an exemption to
>this
> > > rule for Maintenance PARs, division of existing work items and
>similar
> > > routine items but that wouldn't apply to either of these.
> > >
> > > Also, you didn't supply the 5 criteria for either of these. That
>needs
> > > to be precirculated along with the PAR for any PAR that introduces
>new
> > > functionality - which both these PARs do.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, but I don't see how we can consider these PARs in July
>under
> > > our rules.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Pat
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> > > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
> > > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 1:49 PM
> > > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > > Subject: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
> > >
> > > All
> > >
> > > Here are two PARs for consideration at our closing plenary. They
>are
> > > from 802.11.
> > >
> > > James Gilb
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > 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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.