Re: [802SEC] Ruling on the meaning of "Substantially Complete"
Geoff -
The explanation of the intent doesn't change the clarity or otherwise of the
text that was written, as evidenced by the differing interpretations that
were made in the closing EC meeting, and every time we fail to fully reflect
the intent in the actual words we write in the rules, we leave them open to
interpretation. What was written doesn't pass the test of non-ambiguity that
I hope we apply to normative text in our standards; consequently, "clear as
mud" is a pretty reasonable description.
Your case 2, while ideally giving rise to only 2 further recirculations, in
reality can give rise to more. Every time changes are made to the document,
you open the possibility of the editor screwing up or the voting population
disagreeing with the chosen change. Even your case 1 is not guaranteed to be
a single recirc case; every time a document is recirculated without change,
there is an opportunity for the voting population and the WG to spot bugs in
what had been agreed up to that point, and for the WG to decide that it is a
smart move to fix them before closing the balloting process. So in reality,
both of your apparently simple cases have the potential to result in more
recirculations than you claim for them.
So, the question of how many recirculations is anticipated or permitted is
actually the wrong aspect of the process to be focusing on when determining
"substantially complete"; we should be looking at approval rates, the number
of outstanding comments, the volume of change to the document that is
anticipated in dealing with them, and the level of controversy that attaches
to those changes. Unfortunately, especially with the last of those points,
quantifying what is acceptable, and what is not, is likely to be difficult,
and maybe something that can only be a judgement call on the part of the EC
having heard and discussed the background material reported by the WG Chair,
as it is with unconditional approval where we regularly have to decide
whether forwarding a document with outstanding "no" votes is acceptable or
not. Simple numeric thresholds aren't necessarily helpful in determining
completeness, as was demonstrated by at least one example on Friday and many
examples in our past history.
Therefore, the only thing that is wrong with the current wording is that it
is open to the misguided interpretations that (a) there is any hard limit on
the number of recircs that is permitted by the process and (b) that that
limit is one. I cast my votes on Friday on that basis, and will continue to
do so.
Regards,
Tony
On 19 July 2010 05:35, Geoff Thompson <thompson@ieee.org> wrote:
> 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>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------
>>> 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.