Re: [802SEC] Status on WG P&P Drafting
Thanks Jon!
I'll incorporate this into my editing...
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
________________________________
From: Jon Rosdahl [mailto:jrosdahl@ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 2:48 PM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Status on WG P&P Drafting
Comments:
6.1 "The Specific WG officers and their activities should...."
change to "The Specific WG officers and their activities are more
fully described in a WG..."
I still think that the use of Meeting and Session is being confused.
Meetings have sessions, This is the time to rethink and ensure we have
consistency and correct the long standing reversal that 802 has used as
compared to the rest of the IEEE-SA.
7.1 the AudCom may have clarified the statement in question, but it is
valid. There are requirements to be fulfilled in order to gain and
maintain membership. This is not an issue of observers.
7.2.1 the use of meeting and session are not consistent with what is in
our docs now.... last two lines of first paragraph are in particular
confusing conflict.
7.2.2 In response to Adrian's comment....I believe that any interim may
be substituted, so that if a person were to attend for the first time at
an interim, it becomes that person's first plenary equivalent. This
allows a person to gain voting rights by the 2nd true Plenary. If a
person starts on a Plenary, and then attends the interim between, the
next plenary, the person would be granted voting rights on the 2nd
plenary as it serves as the 3rd session (meeting).
7.2.3 typo -- membership
7.2.4 meeting vs. session confusion.....if we leave it here, we should
flip it in other places.
7.2.5 Meeting vs. session confusion.... more of the same.
9.x Voting -- I don't see this as a conflict, if we plug in the
percentages as noted, and then note the issues that belong in each
grouping, it seems very straight forward to me.
9.3 d) I don't see the need to put in the exception to this rule.
"Initiate officer elections" should be sufficient for its own point.
9.3 c)... I don't know that this needs to be listed ahead of d). I
think that this is somewhat of an ordered list, and so the exceptional
items should drop to later in the list.
FWIW,
Jon
________________________________
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 11:32 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Status on WG P&P Drafting
All,
I am almost done with the drafting on the WG P&P. Creation of
the WG P&P will impact both the LMSC P&P and the LMSC OM. So their will
be two ballots:
One to amend the LMSC P&P (effective Jan 1 2010)
One to amend the LMSC OM and create the WG P&P
(effective upon completion of the ballot)
The biggest question at the moment concerns voting rules.
Clause 9 of the WG P&P contains the voting rules, and they are
considerably different from what we currently use. We could use the out
of saying 'we need to be compliant with Sponsor Rules' and simply
replace Clause 9 with subclause 3.2.3.1 of the LMSC OM. However I have
been cautioned against making our rules vary too much from the AudCom
baseline. I can try and reformat our rules to the baseline, but even
then I feel they will be fairly divergent.
Thoughts / preferences?
Thanks!
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.