Re: [802SEC] Rulling on the meaning of "Substantially Complete"
Pat -
There is no good reason why we would be interested in reviewing anything
other than the state of play following the final ballot, any more than we
are currently interested in reviewing ballots prior to an unconditional
approval. If a new Disapprove appears and is resolved before or by that
final ballot, then that is just fine; if it isn't resolved, then sure, we
need to know about it, but only at that point.
Unless, of course, you are suggesting that we review all disapproves on all
ballots, which would make no sense to me whatsoever.
Regards,
Tony
On 20 July 2010 03:18, Pat Thaler <pthaler@broadcom.com> wrote:
> Clearly it makes no sense to interpret the rules as applying only to the
> last recirculation ballot.
>
> The EC needs to review any unresolved disapprove comments (i.e. any where
> the commenter is still dissatisfied). If the rule only applied to the last
> recirculation ballot, then there could be new disapprove comments that came
> on earlier recirculation ballots that the EC did not review when granting
> conditional approval. If there are multiple recirculation ballots, there
> must have been new disapprove comments or draft changes since the time the
> conditional approval was granted and the condition has been broken.
>
> Having gotten careless in the past is no justification for staying careless
> in the future.
>
> Regards,
> Pat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:
> STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Myles (amyles)
> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 1:08 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rulling on the meaning of "Substantially Complete"
>
> 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.