Absolutely.
Regards,
Tony
On 3 November 2010 07:18, Stephens, Adrian P
<Adrian.P.Stephens@intel.com>wrote:
> Hello Tony,
>
>
>
> I donâ??t dispute that you should keep this step if it has a net
benefit to
> your group.
>
>
>
> It doesnâ??t create any administrative workload in 802.11 to have people
> cycle in and out of membership.
>
> People join and leave membership due to the normal operation of the
> balloting response and attendance
>
> rules (typically 20 per event), and it creates no overhead to me to have
> one or two individuals continuously cycle through the stages of membership
>
> as my processing of membership is automated. These have thus far created
> no problem in reaching the required response level.
>
>
>
> So I would like to keep the status quo. You operate the rules that work in
> your group, and I operate the rules that work in mine.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Adrian P Stephens
>
>
>
> Tel: +44 1954 204 609 (office)
> Tel: +44 792 008 4900 (mobile, when in UK)
>
> Tel: +1 408 239 7485 (mobile, when in USA)
> Skype: adrian_stephens
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
> Registered No. 1134945 (England)
> Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
> VAT No: 860 2173 47
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> *From:* tonyjeffree@googlemail.com [mailto:tonyjeffree@googlemail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Tony Jeffree
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:10 AM
> *To:* Stephens, Adrian P
> *Cc:* STDS-802-SEC
>
> *Subject:* Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] IEEE 802 Sunday Night Rules Review
>
>
>
> Adrian -
>
> An advantage of having the potential voter request membership is that some
> people actually don't want the burden of responding to ballots. From my
> point of view, it is a pain administratively to give them voting membership
> automatically, and then have to revoke it because of non-response to
> ballots, potentially on a repeated cycle. It also helps keep the voting
list
> only to those that are likely to send in ballots, and hence makes it easier
> to reach the required response levels. So I will certainly be keeping the
> request step in 802.1.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> On 3 November 2010 06:25, Stephens, Adrian P <Adrian.P.Stephens@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello SEC members,
>
> Regarding 4.1.1 - 802.11 actually took the opposite route. We had "nearly
> voter" and "potential voter"
> statuses. It took a request via a web form to progress from one to the
> other. We determined that this
> was an unnecessary complication. Members didn't understand what this was
> for, or that they had to make
> a request (regardless of me personally sending them an email explaining
> what they had to do and when) and
> missed the opportunity of becoming voters.
>
> So we recently streamlined our process to remove the request step.
>
>
> I guess the only comment I'd make is that we deem participants to be
> compliant to IEEE policies for
> some things, like antitrust, copyright, use of reflectors, merely by
> attending a meeting and registering
> attendance. This is on the reasonable basis that every meeting starts with
> a reference to the appropriate
> policies, and there are new members introductions (both 802 and
> 802.11-specific) that spend more time making
> these points. I don't see the logic if we accept they can learn (and are
> deemed compliant) about antitrust and copyright merely by attending,
> but are cannot learn (and cannot be deemed compliant) about the obligations
> of voters the same way.
> I would therefore suggest that a potential-voter (who has had several
> exposures to explanations of the obligations
> of voters) who attends a session at which he could become a voter, and who
> records electronic attendance is
> deemed to have made the request to become a voter.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Adrian P Stephens
>
> Tel: +44 1954 204 609 (office)
> Tel: +44 792 008 4900 (mobile, when in UK)
> Tel: +1 408 239 7485 (mobile, when in USA)
> Skype: adrian_stephens
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
> Registered No. 1134945 (England)
> Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
> VAT No: 860 2173 47
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On
> Behalf Of Pat Thaler
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:41 PM
> To: Pat Thaler; thompson@ieee.org; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] IEEE 802 Sunday Night Rules Review
>
> An additional thought - while we might not change our P&P this year, we
> should look at the current baseline and submit our comments and concerns to
> AudCom so that there is some hope of it being better aligned to what we
need
> when we next need to modify our P&P.
>
> For instance, I find this bit of 4.1 confusing:
> "Attendance at a meeting via teleconferencing and/or electronic means
> (e.g., Internet conferencing) may count towards the attendance
> requirements." How does that "may" apply? Was it intended to mean that
> electronic attendance always counts - i.e. that the attendee may choose to
> attend that way. Or is it up to the chair of the WG who decides. Or did
they
> mean that when we modify the text, we can produce a P&P that either counts
> or doesn't count electronic attendance (in which case it should probably be
> covered in the red text.
>
> BTW, regarding 4.1.1, both 802.1 chair and 802.3 OM require the applicant
> to request membership - in 802.1 those who want to become members need to
> send an email (or verbally?) indicating that intent to the chair; in 802.3
> the request is made verbally at either the opening or closing WG plenary
> when the potential voter list is put up. We don't grant membership
> automatically based on attendance because membership carries obligations so
> it should only go to those willing to assume the obligations. But we don't
> require a statement of material interest or qualifications - it isn't clear
> to me how that would be useful since we have no grounds to turn someone
down
> for membership based on their interest or qualifications not being good
> enough.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Thaler
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:25 PM
> To: 'thompson@ieee.org'; 'STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] IEEE 802 Sunday Night Rules Review
>
> Are there any urgent changes pending for our P&P? Mat's note said that
> everything he had for now was either editorial or to move toward the AudCom
> text. I suggest that we leave our P&P stable for another year unless there
> is something that is particularly urgent.
>
> If we do find any current rules problems, we could look at whether they are
> something that can be addressed in our Operations Manual.
>
> And in answer to John, I thought we were allowed to change our P&P once a
> year - but I also think that it would be better to touch it less often.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:
> STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 3:43 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] IEEE 802 Sunday Night Rules Review
>
> Bob-
>
> So the significant question becomes:
> If we want to put in ANY change to our P&P
> a) Can we put it in as a simple change against our existing
> approved rules for 5 years?
> b) Any change can't move forward on its own merit without
> swallowing whatever Audcom has done to the baseline since our approval?
> c) We have to do it under some other system as yet unknown?
>
> I would propose a form of c) where small changes ("small" is subject to
> review by AudCom) can be made for 3 years without putting a new
> foundation under the house. Any changes in the 3-5 year time slot would
> require incorporation of the new baseline.
>
> (This would be not terrifically unlike the 3/5 rule on revising standards)
>
> Geoff
>
> On 2/11/10 3:08 PM, Grow, Bob wrote:
> > John:
> >
> > There is no rule on the frequency of baseline updates, though annualizing
> them has been discussed. Some of the problem you see is recognized by
> AudCom.
> >
> > Once accepted, a sponsor generally does not have to do anything until
> five years have passed and the P&P have to be audited again (and that is
> what most sponsors do). IEEE 802 LMSC is the exception with our seeming
> need to frequently change our P&P. Consequently, we have the problem of
> changing other things than what we wanted to fix because the baseline has
> moved.
> >
> > --Bob Grow
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:
> STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Hawkins
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:07 PM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] IEEE 802 Sunday Night Rules Review
> >
> > So you are contrasting our P&P with a new AudCom baseline, or the
> original one?
> >
> > How often will the AudCom baseline be changing? 'Cause if we can't
> > touch ours except every X years (was it 2?), and they touch the
> > baseline at a rate of less than X years (or even equal to X years) I
> > see a problem...
> >
> > john
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:
> STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 10:22 AM
> >> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >> Subject: Re: [802SEC] IEEE 802 Sunday Night Rules Review
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I have added a new agenda topic based on input from Jon Rosdahl (see
> updated agenda at the end).
> >>
> >> I addition, I have posted a new set of revisions for the LMSC P&P on the
> LMSC document server (10-04 rev 2). I have gone through the AudCom
> baseline, and updated the current set of revisions for the current AudCom
> baseline. There are quite a few changes. Note that our level of
> conformance with the current baseline was a sticky point in getting our
> least P&P revision approved and posted by AudCom. So key highlights are:
> >>
> >> 3. Officers
> >>
> >> The AudCom format has become very inflexible here. I don't think we
> should be fully conformant, but it needs to be discussed. I'm not sure how
> to accommodate our various offices within their format.
> >>
> >> 3.1 Election or appointment of Sponsor officers
> >>
> >> Again, they are very inflexible concerning your approach. You are
> supposed to select one of 3 approaches, and ours does not directly align
> with any of their approaches. Also the term has been set at 1 year, not 2
> years. I don't think we should comply with AudCom.
> >>
> >> 3.4.1 Chair
> >>
> >> A lot of "interesting" reporting responsibilities have been added which
> may have been previously delegated.
> >>
> >> 3.4.3 Recording Secretary
> >>
> >> The timing on when certain documentation should be provided has been
> changed a bit.
> >>
> >> 4.1 Voting membership
> >>
> >> You are required to "apply" for membership. This can be finessed but
> I'm not sure if we need to change our processes a bit.
> >>
> >>
> >> 6. Meetings
> >>
> >> Here too, the rules they are a changing....
> >>
> >> New rules on meeting fees, and how to take minutes. Probably not much
> impact, but it should be reviewed...
> >>
> >>
> >> 7. Vote
> >>
> >> There are a lot of changes in these sections. I encourage everyone to
> review them and comment. I don't see anything objectionable, but others
> might.
> >>
> >>
> >> There are many more minor changes. Right now, I believe everything in
> this set of revisions is intended to be either editorial, or to bring us
> into conformance with AudCom. I encourage everyone to download the actual
> document and review the readlined changes. If there are any other
> significant changes to our P&P people desire, please put them on the table
> so they can be discussed. I'd like to try and vote this in November as our
> "yearly" change. We can also defer to March, but I'd prefer to sync our
> changes with the end of the calendar year for our change schedule.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Here is the current Agenda:
> >>
> >> Rules for WG "Letter Ballot" balloting groups
> >> Rules for Interim meetings
> >> Review current ballot on LMSC P&P revision
> >> This has been on-going for 2 cycles
> since we only submit one change a year
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:
> STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> >> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 9:54 PM
> >> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >> Subject: [802SEC] IEEE 802 Sunday Night Rules Review (1 week from
> today!)
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >> Happy Holloween! I'd like to this opportunity to remind you that the
> IEEE 802 Sunday Night Rules review will be held just one week from now!
> >>
> >> Sunday Nov 7th from 6 PM to 10 PM in the Pryor-Crockett conference room.
> >>
> >> If you have any specific agenda items you would like to see, let me
> know.
> >>
> >> So far I have:
> >>
> >> Rules for WG "Letter Ballot" balloting groups
> >> Review current ballot on LMSC P&P revision
> >> This has been on-going for 2 cycles
> since we only submit one change a year
> >>
> >> Regards to all,
> >>
> >> 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.
>
>
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This
list is maintained by Listserv.