Re: [802SEC] straw poll summary of on the question of interim EC telecon meetings
I want to respond to:
"We might end up with less conditional motions to go to Sponsor ballot and RevCom since WGs would not have to wait 4 months."
This change does not reduce the need for conditional motions in my experience. Usually when I request a conditional motion, it is for something where the conditionally approved action occurs before the midway point between plenaries.
For example, at the last plenary we requested conditional forwarding to sponsor ballot for IEEE 802.1Qbb. This was in order to allow WG recirculation immediately after the meeting followed by a sponsor ballot which will close in time for comment resolution at our May meeting. Conditional ballot is very important for this because recirculation ballot, a few days (unfortunately) for the balloting center to start the sponsor ballot and the 30 day sponsor ballot period needs fairly careful planning and in some cases having to add an EC email ballot would result in not closing sponsor ballot before the interim.
If I'm not going to be ready to start the sponsor ballot until after the interim, that probably also means that the status of the WG ballot resolution isn't complete enough to allow for a conditional approval. Approval would have to be by EC email ballot (which is the plan for 802.1Qaz which wasn't ready for conditional ballot in March but might be ready for Sponsor ballot after the interim).
For forwarding to RevCom - only in June does the proposed interim EC meeting fall such that it might replace a motion for conditional forwarding to RevCom. September and December RevCom meetings fall before the interim EC and in March RevCom is usually so soon after 802 that there is no conditional forwarding.
I would be against any suggestion that we use this meeting in place of conditional approval.
-----Original Message-----
From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:02 AM
To: Pat Thaler; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] straw poll summary of on the question of interim EC telecon meetings
Paul,
One way to deal with this is to hold a non-voting meeting where we discuss motions and then to have a post-meeting electronic ballot, on each motion. So the discussion could take place during the call. We could even have a straw poll and it there is controversy discuss what the controversy is.
The main issue is the overhead of having the electronic ballot. Maybe a simple spreadsheet could be used to combine all the motions onto a single spreadsheet and people could just enter their votes. It is more overhead but it would be helpful to the WGs on motions to go to Sponsor ballot and RevCom. We might end up with less conditional motions to go to Sponsor ballot and RevCom since WGs would not have to wait 4 months.
I believe this works with the current rules.
Comments?
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 9:34 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll summary of on the question of interim EC telecon meetings
Paul,
I don't think 2 quite covers the response I gave. My points were
-- we already have continuous processing available via email votes except for submittal of PARs to NesCom.
PARs to NesCom should continue to be an action taken only at plenaries
(except perhaps for corrigenda)
email is best for continuous processing of approval to go to sponsor ballot or RevCom
-- therefore, I don't support having an interim EC meeting for these, but I could see one to deal with the topics and coordination that get short shrift during a busy plenary
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 1:04 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] straw poll summary of on the question of interim EC telecon meetings
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" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
> To: <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.