Re: [802SEC] Ruling on the meaning of "Substantially Complete"
G'day Geoff
I don't doubt your personal understanding of the original intent of the
rule. The problem is that the rule has been implemented differently over
the years from your recollection of the original intent.
In a sense, the EC has already agreed on a single interpretation on
Friday by approving the conditional approvals that had three
recirculations as part of their plan. You, and possibly other EC
members, apparently disagree.
I am sure you would agree that is not useful for each EC member to apply
the rules differently, and so that it would probably be a good idea from
the perspective of the WG's for the EC to agree on a single consistent
interpretation.
I will be quiet now ... ;)
Andrew
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, 19 July 2010 2:35 PM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles)
Cc: Geoff Thompson; 802 EC
Subject: Re: Ruling on the meaning of "Substantially Complete"
Andrew-
To my mind, you are incorrect, both in your interpretation of "clear as
mud" and for the appropriate action.
I was there when the rule was written and I understand what it was for.
When the rule was originally written, it was the custom (whether you
agree with it or not) for the EC (in plenary session) to audit the final
results of a project's Sponsor Ballot before approving the placement on
the RevCom agenda. We made the decision that waiting until balloting
was fully complete before making that judgment AND only making that
decision during a Friday EC at a plenary was overly restrictive to the
timely completion of projects .
It was our judgment that the action we could take with the smallest loss
of oversight was to make our judgment when balloting was "substantially
complete" (but with some crisp, stringent conditions) instead of waiting
for "fully complete".
To my mind that allows for two cases after the conditional vote that
don't break out of the conditional restrictions:
Case 1: The draft goes out for it's last recirculation with no
changes to the text of the draft. The sole purpose of this
recirculation is to recirculate comments and resolutions thereof from
the previous iteration of the ballot. This is the single recirc. case.
Case 2: There were some minor changes to the draft as a result of
resolution of comments during the plenary. In this case, there may be
new comments on the changed material. If there is, that would
necessitate one more recirc. with no changes to the draft in order to
finalize the ballot. The EC, in making the judgment to allow this,
reviews the changes to the draft and the outstanding issues to establish
that balloting is substantially complete and that the changed portions
of the draft are not techically significant. This is the case that could
require 2 recircs after the EC conditional approval yet still remain
within the conditions of the EC motion.
I think all of this is perfectly appropriate as is. I intend to cast my
votes at the EC on this basis.
Best regards,
Geoff Thompson
On 18/7/10 1:08 PM, Andrew Myles (amyles) wrote:
G'day Mat
The rule as written is obviously as "clear as mud" given the discussion
at the EC on Friday. That leaves us with the problem of how to interpret
it.
One thing we do know is that it has been interpreted many times in the
past to allow multiple recirculations. This is the "status quo". It is
possible this has been done contrary to the written rules.
However, one can easily interpret the written rules to allow multiple
recirculations. In particular, one could interpret the conditions you
note below to have an unwritten "last" before the words "recirculation
ballot". Clearly this has been the interpretation in the past.
Unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, best practice is
such situations of uncertainty is to maintain the status quo until a
decision is made to change the status quo. In this case the status quo
is to allow multiple recirculations.
That said, an activity needs to be started to clarify the rules. I would
advocate that multiple recirculations be allowed because this mechanism
supports the idea of making timely forward progress. However, I would
also advocate that members of the EC given the opportunity to review
that the conditions have been met at the end of the process.
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Sunday, 18 July 2010 10:40 PM
To: Bob O'Hara; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: 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>
<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.
----------
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.