Re: [802SEC] straw poll summary of on the question of interim EC telecon meetings
Geoff, I agree on your comment on #2. I would suggest 3 strikes and
you're out as enough flexibility without allowing the indefinite. If
you're not there after 3 tries, it's probably reasonable to look for an
alternate approach.
As for the sentiment, I would agree that the wording may have been a bit
overstated. What I meant was: I would have difficulty supporting a plan
that continued to ignore the problem with rules changes and just let things
remain broken and obstructive. J
Thanx, Buzz
Please note my contact info:
Dr. Everett O (Buzz) Rigsbee
IEEE-802 LMSC Meeting Manager
7750 80th Place SE
Mercer Island, WA 98040-5912
ph/fx: 206-236-2229
cell: 206-818-4978
SkypeID: BRigsB
BRigsB@ieee.org
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@ieee.org]
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:02 AM
To: BRigsB@ieee.org
Cc: 'Paul Nikolich'; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll summary of on the question of interim EC
telecon meetings
Buzz-
Your trial period is perhaps a reasonable approach for general problems
as well as our current proposal.
It really isn't clear to me until we test your format against some other
situations/proposals.
The only specific critique I have at this point with your 4 choices is that
#2 has the potential for abuse if we keep extending a trial forever. I
believe that there ought to be a limit on the number of renewals.
With respect to your statement:
"I would not support a plan that prohibits use of this proposal until the
necessary rules changes has been effected, adopted, and approved by the
IEEE-SA."
That is a delightful sentiment but I fear:
- That might be interpreted by AudCom and the SA as an attempt to
subvert their rules approval process
- We would be in a VERY poor position should any action we take under a
trial rule be appealed.
Geoff
On 4/25/10 8:44 AM, Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee wrote:
HI Geoff, I must say that I don't disagree with your assessment. I also
believe that the root of the problem is the cumbersome rules process and how
it prevents us from being able to make expeditious process enhancements.
So I would propose we look for a way to have a "trial use" process that
allows us by simple majority to adopt a proposed rules change for a time
limited period to assess the efficacy of that change. Before the end of the
trial period we must either: (1) vote to adopt the change and put it in the
queue for our next rules update, or (2) vote to extend the trial period for
another period (with some possible changes applied), or (3) reject the
proposed rule and end the trial, or (4) allow the trial period to expire
and the rule is thereby vacated. I would agree that a discussion with
working groups may be warranted and would support a plan to delay
consideration of the proposed change until the July session. I would not
support a plan that prohibits use of this proposal until the necessary rules
changes has been effected, adopted, and approved by the IEEE-SA.
I think the other concerns with respect to openness and notice can be
addressed with some thoughtful process design and the right support tools.
J
Thanx, Buzz
Please note my contact info:
Dr. Everett O (Buzz) Rigsbee
IEEE-802 LMSC Meeting Manager
7750 80th Place SE
Mercer Island, WA 98040-5912
ph/fx: 206-236-2229
cell: 206-818-4978
SkypeID: BRigsB
BRigsB@ieee.org
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@ieee.org]
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 9:00 PM
To: BRigsB@ieee.org
Cc: 'Paul Nikolich'; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; Geoff Thompson
Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll summary of on the question of interim EC
telecon meetings
Buzz-
I have to disagree with you on this.
This is not about us as the Exec, a body of less than 20 people.
Our rules and past procedures properly set the expectations to our 802
constituency on how we do and will operate.
Our rules, while they do not explicitly forbid meetings of the proposed
sort, clearly are oriented around something else, i.e. 2 face-to-face
meetings at plenaries and mail ballots in between meetings.
I don't think we are too anal about "The Rules" given that we are an
organization of over 1000.
I do think that our rules change process is broken.
It is far too cumbersome and painful to change our rules.
I believe we need to give some serious thought to lightening up the rules
change process.
I am fully in favor of taking a vote on "an agreement in principle" on the
phone meetng issue at the closing EC in July.
I don't think the EC should vote on this before consulting with the Working
Groups whom we represent.
I do not think this is a step we should take on the fly and without warning
between plenaries.
I do not think this is a step we should take lightly.
Geoff
On 4/23/10 4:47 PM, Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee wrote:
Colleagues, I honestly think we are beginning to be way too anal about
"The Rules". My suggestion would be that if we have a proposal for new
policy which is not strictly prohibited by our existing rules but not
explicitly allowed either, then we may by a simple majority vote to enable a
trial period for the new policy, so that we can decide if it is in fact a
beneficial and worthwhile policy or not, and then based on that decide
whether to proceed with the rule change to make the policy explicit or
abandon the policy. Given the large amount and time and energy that goes
into making a rule change, I would hate to see us have to go through all of
that only to later decide it wasn't a useful policy after all and have to
reverse the rule change. I don't think we want our rules to handcuff us and
prevent us from trying out possible process improvements to judge whether
they are useful or not. Once we are sure we want to make the change, it is
a simple matter to bundle the rule change text into the next rule change
process cycle, and if that takes a while, so be it; it does not need to
prevent us from benefitting from the new process.
We've lived with rules in process for extended periods without serious
side-effects. I don't see why we need to suddenly allow rules procedures to
inhibit and deter all innovations. Allowing for rule extensions to
accommodate new tools and process improvements should be an easy matter not
a grueling procedure. :-)
Thanx, Buzz
Please note my contact info:
Dr. Everett O (Buzz) Rigsbee
IEEE-802 LMSC Meeting Manager
7750 80th Place SE
Mercer Island, WA 98040-5912
ph/fx: 206-236-2229
cell: 206-818-4978
SkypeID: BRigsB
BRigsB@ieee.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 1:46 PM
To: Paul Nikolich
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll summary of on the question of interim EC
telecon meetings
Paul-
I think you have slightly mis-characterized the responses
I would characterize #2 as
2) Not necessarily a bad idea but orthogonal to the spirit and letter of
our rules.
Should not proceed until until the topic is tackled within the scope of
our rules change process
Geoff
On 4/23/10 1:03 PM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
All,
So far the responses generally fall into two categories:
1) good idea, need to work out details, go for it
(Apurva, Buzz, Steve, Bruce, Jon, JohnH, Subir, Mike)
2) not a bad idea, have concerns, proceed with caution
(Pat, Mat, Tony, James, Geoff, JohnL, David)
Any further opinions? A few people (BobH, Roger, Mark) have yet to
weigh in.
Regards,
--Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Nikolich"
<mailto:paul.nikolich@ATT.NET> <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
To: <mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
<STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 10:19 AM
Subject: [802SEC] straw poll on interim EC telecon meetings
Dear EC members,
I'd like to get your feedback on holding an EC meeting via
teleconference between plenary sessions (for example in the 1st week
of June, October and February). My though is we'd hold a 2 hour
telecon to make decisions on time-critical items such as PAR
approvals, Sponsor Ballot initiation approvals, RevCom submissions, etc.
I'd make sure we'd have an agenda posted 30 days in advance an all
the materials necessary to make such decisions available for review
at least one week before the telecon.
Thoughts? Please provide your feedback by 23APR. I'll summarize the
feedback and if the response is positive, I'd like us to consider
holding the first such meeting 1pm-3pm ET Friday 04JUN2010.
Regards,
--Paul
----------
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.