[802SEC] Draft Minutes from 5/29/09 Telecon on WG P&P
All,
Please note the draft minutes below. If any attendee see and error or
wants to amend the minutes please let me know in the next week so I can
formally release the final version.
Thanks!
Mat
Attendees:
Matthew Sherman
Jon Rosdahl
Bruce Kraemer
David Law
Geoff Thompson
Roger Marks
Actions:
Provide updates on current draft WG P&P every two weeks - Mat
Next update will be 6/12/09
Minutes:
We reviewed the document Mat provided on the reflector the night before.
One concern expressed was how subgroups of WG (such as TG and TF) should
be covered in the P&P. The consensus was that subgroups of WG should be
lightly covered in the WG P&P, and further detail in WG OM.
Mat requested guidance on how TAGs should be handled.
Geoff provided some background on the origin of the TAG. The EC didn't
want to give the impression that a particular group (which wanted to
write a recommended practice) could write a full standard, so they
created TAGs with the rule that a full standard could not be written.
Further details were also provided.
In the end, the teleconference attendees agreed that given the current
situation with SA, it makes more sense to restrict development of any
standard (Standard, Recommended Practice, or Guide) to working groups.
The EC always has final say on approval / placement of a PAR anyway. We
still see a place for 'advisory' TAGS which don't write standards and we
should craft rules for that. It was noted that SA rules don't seem to
have any allowance for groups that persist without a PAR (essentially a
standing committee) and we may want to socialize with SA having a formal
allowance for this.
Concern was expressed that we are moving too slow on creating WG P&P,
and Mat was asked what the time table was for development of the WG P&P.
Mat said that the goal was to complete the process for November, but
that he believed we were allowed a year from when the requirement for WG
P&P went into effect, which was March 31st 2009. Mat was asked to
provide an exact time table which is shown below:
March 09 Plenary General discussions and consensus to have
single over riding WG P&P in IEEE 802, but no actions since rules not in
effect yet
March 31, 2009 WG P&P requirements go into effect /
issued
April 1, 2009 Mat announces a series of
teleconferences to address the issue with intent of having a draft WG
P&P to ballot in July
April 29, 2009 First teleconference
May 29, 2009 Second teleconference (this
teleconference)
June 26, 2009 Third teleconference
July 12, 2009 Rules meeting primarily dedicated to WG
P&P issue
July 17, 2009 Vote to initiate ballot
Nov 20, 2009 Vote to approve ballot
March 19, 2010 Fall back Vote to approve ballot if ballot
fails in November
Mat expressed that he believes this schedule should meet the
requirements of AudCom and that there is 'no rush' in that he felt there
was adequate time in the schedule to address the matter at hand -
particularly going to ballot in July 2009. Others disagreed and were
concerned that the schedule was not aggressive enough and needed to
complete in November 2009. Mat did not feel it was realistic to count
on the first vote being approved given prior experience with other
complex ballots.
In the end the group decided to add another 2.5 hour session to discuss
the WG P&P right before dinner on the Saturday after the July 2009
Plenary. It was requested that Mat start future meetings by reviewing
the schedule and making sure to convey the urgency of completing this
task. Mat agreed to do this (but it is not noted as a formal action
item). It was also requested that Mat provide an update on the drafting
of the WG P&P every two weeks. Mat agreed with the next update
scheduled for 6/12/09.
Discussion continued with Mat bringing up the issue of scope statements.
The reformatted draft 802.11 P&P has a scope statement in section 5, but
such a statement would not be appropriate for a general WG P&P covering
all WG within IEEE 802. Various suggestions were made. In the end the
consensus was that the 'Scope' of a WG is really the sum scope of all
the PARs assigned to it, and there was no need to have a formal scope
statement. Mat noted that our practice of allowing WG to exist
indefinitely and address multiple PARs did not seem to align well with
SA rules, and seemed to be in part justified by the need to maintain
standards once they issue. It was decided to add a statement in section
5 about WG maintaining existing standards (responding to inquiries on
behalf of the sponsor, having maintenance PARs etc), and that unless SA
pushed back we would not highlight any concern on the permanence of WG.
That completes these minutes....
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Engineering Fellow
BAE Systems - Electronics, Intelligence, & Support (EI&S)
Office: +1 973.633.6344
Cell: +1 973.229.9520
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.