Re: [802SEC] Rulling on the meaning of "Substantially Complete"
Bob,
I agree that a less restrictive rule is good. The question is, what does the rule say today? Whatever it says, we are obligated to follow it. If we don't like it, we should change it rather than ignore it.
At the EC Friday several very different interpretations were offered for this rule, and it was a cause for substantial debate at the EC meeting which slowed down the meeting a lot. I have offered my interpretation of the rule, and am looking for Paul to put forward a formal interpretation so that we all are using the same rules, and don't have this debate again next time. If people don't like what the rule says (I don't) we can always change it.
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob O'Hara [mailto:bohara@wysiwyg104.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 12:38 AM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Rulling on the meaning of "Substantially Complete"
Mat,
I don't understand why we would want to make this rule so restrictive. Is there a problem if a WG conducts more than one recirculation ballot in accordance with the rules for that process and winds up after a final recirculation ballot with the material to support forwarding their draft? The EC does get to review their report of completion and any member can object to forwarding the draft if they are not happy with that report.
What is the problem with allowing more than one recirculation?
-Bob O'Hara
p.s. I don't know whether this will get sent through the reflector. If it does not, please forward it for me.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-
> SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 3:40 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rulling on the meaning of "Substantially Complete"
>
> Mat's thoughts on this topic:
>
> Personally I think we generally create unnecessarily rigid rules, but rules
> are rules. The fact that we have broken them in the past, doesn't mean we
> shouldn't obey them once we realize our errors. If we don't like them, we
> should change them.
>
> While I agree that the line:
>
> "This procedure is to be used when approval to forward a draft standard to
> sponsor ballot or to RevCom is conditional on successful completion of a WG or
> sponsor recirculation ballot, respectively."
>
> Could be interpreted to allow multiple recirculation ballots, the text later
> in the clause make it clear that only one recirculation is contemplated.
> Consider the following:
>
> "Conditions:
> a) Recirculation ballot is completed. Generally, the recirculation ballot and
> resolution should occur in accordance with the schedule presented at the time
> of conditional approval.
> b) After resolution of the recirculation ballot is completed, the approval
> percentage is at least 75% and there are no new valid DISAPPROVE votes."
>
> There are several other similar references, the point being that the words
> "recirculation ballot" always occurs in the singular. If the rules intended
> to allow form multiple recirculations, the term here should have been plural.
>
> While I personally believe the rule should allow for "2 reciruclations" (and
> no more by the way), put simply - it does not.
>
> So I would request that the LMSC Chair rule that only on recirculation is
> allowed for instances where the conditional approval process is used. I would
> also support changing the rule (via a rules change) to allow for up to 2
> recirculations.
>
> Regards,
>
> 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: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-
> SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 5:07 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [802SEC] Rulling on the meaning of "Substantially Complete"
>
> Paul,
>
> In the LMSC OM Clause 14 the rules read:
>
>
>
>
> 14. Procedure for Conditional Approval to Forward a Draft Standard
>
>
>
> This procedure is to be used when approval to forward a draft standard to
> sponsor ballot or to RevCom is conditional on successful completion of a WG or
> sponsor recirculation ballot, respectively. Seeking conditional approval is
> only appropriate when ballot resolution efforts have been substantially
> completed and the approval ratio is sufficient.
>
> Based on the confusion and debate at the EC meeting today on this matter, I
> request that you do a formal interpretation of this rule in regards with
> whether the term "substantially complete" would allow for multiple (more than
> 1) recirculations to be held and still be compliant with the Conditional
> Approval procedure. You opinion should be captured in the Chairs guide for
> future reference, and clarification would be included in the OM at the first
> opportunity.
>
> Regards,
>
> 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<mailto: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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.