Re: [802SEC] WG P&P
Mat -
Thanks for the clarification.
I don't mind the 14-day notice period - I was just pointing out that it is a difference.
However, I DO dislike the idea that we have to have a 2-week meeting to conduct an
election ballot at a meeting!
Regards,
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) [mailto:matthew.sherman@baesystems.com]
Sent: 08 June 2009 16:48
To: tony@jeffree.co.uk; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG P&P
Tony,
Yes the master plan is still one set of rules for everyone, and then different WG can
augment these rules with other stuff peculiar to their groups. The goal is to have
something general and light enough in this document that everyone is comfortable with it.
Personally, I like the idea that people have to announce their candidacy 2 weeks in
advance. However, we can tailor this section, and don't have to require that if people
don't want it.
Mat
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 11:45 AM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG P&P
Mat -
There are some obvious places in the document where changes are needed - the most glaring
apart from the sections you cite below is in 6.2 where it seems to require that if you
hold officer elections during a meeting, then the election has to last 14 days (so
presumably the meeting has to last 14 days), but apart from fixing the bugs it seems like
a plausible starting point. Also worth noting that the wording of 6.2 means that we would
have to open nominations for officer posts 14 days before we hold the election, even if we
do this at a meeting, which doesn't match some WGs' current practice.
I presume the master plan here is still to have one set of WG P&P that cover all WGs in
802, and that any WG that wants to add to them can then do their own thing?
Regards,
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: 08 June 2009 04:11
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] WG P&P
All,
I've been actively editing a draft WG P&P. I'm starting to get into more difficult stuff,
so I thought I would solicit a few opinions....
The baseline WG P&P provided by AudCom (attached) often allows us to modify the rules.
Key areas where modifications are possible are:
Membership (7.2)
Meetings (10 and part of 7.2)
Voting (9)
The rules presented there are generally simpler than our own. I could force fit our
existing rules into the WG P&P format (I will force the approval rate to ¾ on some votes)
but I'm inclined to let much of the default text stand instead of our current rules.
What do people think?
Mat
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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.