Re: [802SEC] 802.11 PARs for Friday's agenda
Paul,
I appreciate your help in fixing this.
I believe an appropriate motion would be:
Move that the EC consider the two 802.11 PARs, following the normal PAR
procedure, granting the 802.11 WG chair a reduction of the circulation
requirement from 30 days to 28 days.
I would be willing to make this motion.
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:18 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] 802.11 PARs for Friday's agenda
All,
I suggest the EC consider the two 802.11 PARs following the normal PAR
procedure if and only if the EC explicitly grants the 802.11 WG chair a
reduction of the 30 day circulation requirement to 28 days for the two
802.11 PARs via an EC email ballot on a motion requesting the
requirement
reduction.
I'm not sure what the approval threshold for a rule waiver is per RR,
but I
would require a >3/4 approval threshold (with all voting EC members in
the
denominator).
I'll start an EC email ballot if someone is willing to make a motion and
find a second.
Regards,
--Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Kraemer" <bkraemer@MARVELL.COM>
To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
> 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.
----------
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.