Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] IEEE 802 Sunday Night Rules Review
Folks,
First off, the membership rules I was talking about only refer to "EC" or "Sponsor" membership. I don't believe they would constrain the WG at all. Those rules would be in the WG P&P.
As other have indicated, I believe we are only required to update our rules once every 5 years. We are out of sync with AudCom, but there is not explicit requirement to be in sync. So if we want to defer changing the P&P for a year, I'm fine with that personally. However if there is something we feel need critical fixing, I'd like to try and do it in November.
Otherwise, if there are items for the OM (or WG P&P) please let me know and we can put them on the agenda.
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 Bob Heile
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 5:28 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] IEEE 802 Sunday Night Rules Review
15 has always operated by the rules 11 recently adopted. Like Adrian has
indicated, the way we have it organized it has not been an admin issue for
us either and is much easier for our largely Asian membership to
understand. How this is handled should be at the option of the group.
At 08:04 AM 11/3/2010 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>Absolutely.
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>
>On 3 November 2010 07:18, Stephens, Adrian P
><Adrian.P.Stephens@intel.com>wrote:
>
> > Hello Tony,
> >
> >
> >
> > I don’t dispute that you should keep this step if it has a net
> benefit to
> > your group.
> >
> >
> >
> > It doesn’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.
Bob Heile, Ph.D
Chairman, ZigBee Alliance
Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
Co-Chair IEEE P2030 Task Force 3 on Smartgrid Communications
11 Robert Toner Blvd
Suite 5-301
North Attleboro, MA 02763 USA
Mobile: +1-781-929-4832
email: bheile@ieee.org
----------
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.