| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
No typewriters, thankfully. Printers and copiers – lots of copiers. There was no wireless networking, but that was okay because there also were no laptops.
I did what I think was the first predecessor of our comment database tool in an HP proprietary database program around 1988 for resolving 10BASE-T comments. Printed them out on transparencies with a space below each comment to write the task group’s resolution
in transparency pen. A big part of Face to Face’s job at the plenaries was copy management. People would turn in a form with a document to be sent to a copy center. There were boxes
and boxes of copies coming back to be picked up by the groups and distributed. Copies of drafts were made, collated, stapled and put into envelopes to mail.
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Lynch Tony and Pat, From:
Tony Jeffree <tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK> Pat - I agree with you. It could be implemented simply and easily, and would address the issue that we had recently. The question is whether the organization has the will to implement it. Regards, On Aug 29, 2012 7:44 PM, "Pat Thaler" <pthaler@broadcom.com> wrote: Dear Colleagues, I agree that this arose from a failure of the process of liaison/coordination and resolving that issue would fix
it. As I understand the way things stand now, an incorporated specification developing body or non-IEEE SDO could
be an entity member and join entity projects. On the other hand there are no rules requirements on responding to liaisons (from inside or outside IEEE) and coordination
with other IEEE WGs. (Coordination is only mentioned as the mandatory coordination from SCC14, IEEE standards editorial staff and the RAC).
The result is that the rules put IEEE sponsors in an inferior position on having input to IEEE standards projects
in other IEEE sponsors. They have to depend on the good will of the other sponsor in establishing a working liaison relationship without any force of policy requiring such cooperation. Back in the mists of time (before email, PDF and MyBallot when we used postal services to send a paper copy of
a draft), PARs had a field to indicate other sponsors/WGs that required coordination. They were sent drafts as part of Sponsor Balloting and their comments needed response. (They didn’t have a vote.) That was dropped, I think, because often groups were non-responsive
and it was a pain tracking them down to get the liaison response. There should be some requirements on a project requiring coordination with another WG or sponsor that wants liaison.
A WG shouldn’t be able to withhold sponsor ballot drafts and should respond to comments submitted on those drafts. It doesn’t have to require the onerous tracking down of a non-responsive group. For instance, a group wanting liaison could be added to the MyBallot
for coordination so that they are notified when a ballot starts, can download the draft and upload comments.
MyBallot already provides for that for the mandatory coordination. I don’t know if it would require modification
to add additional non-voting coordination members of the pool. This could be less burdensome than the old rule. It could be up to the liaison group to conduct the review and
comment. If they are unresponsive, the project could progress. One doesn’t have to have a rule requiring the owner of the PAR to extract responses from them. Regards, Pat From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee
List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson Paul- Dear EC Members, Below is the rejection response to 802's application for entity membership. I will be in Piscataway at SASB meetings today
and tomorrow to further discuss this with our 802 colleagues, along with staff and SA volunteers.
We need to figure out what our next steps should be.
Regards, --Paul ----- Original Message -----
From:
P.Sulzer@ieee.org
To:
Paul Nikolich Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 9:04
AM Subject: Your Application for IEEE-SA
Corporate Membership
For the purpose of IEEE entity standards development, the term "control" (and its linguistic derivatives, e.g., "controlling," "controlled") means:
---------- 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. --047d7b34372a5ebb7904c86c14d1-- ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
|