Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Ruling on the meaning of "Substantially Complete"

Tony-
I believe that it is part of our responsibility to provide oversight on the unresolved issues. Also, if a WG asserts that balloting is substantially complete and it turns out that is not the case, then I believe we need to look at the submitted comments and responses surrounding that. To that end, my definition of "substantially complete" that limits the recircs to 1 or 2 as I outlined earlier is reasonable and it is the one that I intend to use. 

Geoff

On 20/7/10 12:44 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:

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.



----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.