| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Tony,
I pointed out in my prior email the following –
I believe from the conversations we have had that we wish to have it appear that this communication comes from the LMSC. Therefore, as recording secretary, I would want to see that I have the LMSC’s approval to make the informal communication with my title included.
My perception of my discussion with Pat and others is that we do want this appearance, and therefore I think some sort of endorsement from the EC is appropriate. As I noted below – I believe putting this in the chair’s guidelines as a responsibility of the recording secretary will be sufficient.
John
From: tonyjeffree@googlemail.com [mailto:tonyjeffree@googlemail.com] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:58 AM
To: John D'Ambrosia
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Informing other bodies of our proposed PARs
John -
I think that two different things are being confused here.
Thing one is you communicating with some other individual or body in your role as Recording secretary. There are likely to be many cases during your tenure when you will need to do that, and in my view, very few of them (probably none) that require prior approval by the EC.
Thing two is you sending a communication to some individual or body on behalf of the EC. There are likely to be many cases where you will need to do that, and in my view, very few of them (probably none) that DO NOT require prior approval by the EC.
I believe that the draft communication is an example of Thing 2, but ONLY because you have chosen to send it in the name of the EC. If you had chosen to send it as J. D'A, Rec Sec, then I would have been happy to treat it as Thing 1.
Personally, I don't believe that the content in any way merits it being treated as Thing 2 as all it is doing is disseminating publicly available information. However, if that is what you would like it to be treated as, then can I suggest that, once we have gone through the mandatory outbreak of wordsmithing, we have a standing item on the consent agenda of the closing EC telling you to send the next iteration...or maybe even better, a Chair's Guideline saying that is what should happen?
Regards,
TonyOn 15 October 2012 17:54, John D'Ambrosia <jdambrosia@force10labs.com> wrote:
All,
I don’t think the issue is with us communicating publically available information as individuals, but for me, it is an issue when I sign it with my Recording Secretary title in the signature. I believe from the conversations we have had that we wish to have it appear that this communication comes from the LMSC. Therefore, as recording secretary, I would want to see that I have the LMSC’s approval to make the informal communication with my title included.
I also agree with James that in order to make this something that is a regularly occurring item it is listed in the Chair’s Guidelines under responsibilities for the Recording Secretary. James, please add to agenda, If you have not already.
I am including a draft liaison communication template for all’s review and comment.
Regards,
John
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Kraemer
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:41 AM
To: Pat Thaler; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Informing other bodies of our proposed PARs
Pat,
1. The additional group requesting this information is ISO SC6.
2. I would support the motion proposed by John as a vehicle for making info available at the end of each plenary.
In addition…..
3. We have a standardized system for collecting and displaying PAR information on a PAR page so I presume, with a little bit of work, we can replicate that for Study Groups.
4. Conveyances to ISO will need to be formatted i.e the new information from each plenary dropped into a cover letter. I expect each recipient will require a similar procedure. I believe each of these cover letters, and email distribution lists, can be prepared once and then reused by John after each plenary.
Bruce
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 6:50 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Informing other bodies of our proposed PARs
Does anyone object to the motion John suggests? Pat
From: John D'Ambrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@force10labs.com]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 3:34 PM
To: Pat Thaler; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Informing other bodies of our proposed PARs
Pat,
I assume you are going to want the recording secretary, i.e. me, to send this.
As I would be sending this as the IEEE 802 LMSC Recording Secretary, I would prefer a motion supporting that communication. However, I do not think it needs to be a liaison, and believe that the following would be sufficient
Move that the IEEE 802 LMSC Recording Secretary send an informal communication to external groups, as designated by the IEEE 802 EC Chair, that communicates for each IEEE 802 Plenary Session PARs and Study Groups that were under consideration.
John
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 5:14 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] Informing other bodies of our proposed PARs
We discussed during the EC teleconference whether posting a pointer to PARs on the IETF new-work reflector is a liaison statement which requires a motion or not. Some felt strongly that it does and others equally strongly that it doesn’t. We have a similar request from another standards body (was it ITU?).
The form of email would be something like:
The following Project Authorization Requests are under consideration for the <month> <year> IEEE 802 Plenary:
A list of <designation>-<title>
The PARs can be found at http://ieee802.org/PARs.shtml.
Any comments on a proposed PAR should be sent to the Working Group chair identified in the PAR to be received by <date of Tuesday of the plenary> 1700 <time zone of meeting>.
At this point, I can see two courses of action –
A motion to give blanket approval to a regular liaison mailing of the information above to IETF (and possibly include the other body)
Or
A motion to acknowledge that the above communication is not a formal liaison and doesn’t require approval.
I’d like input on which would be preferred.
Pat
---------- 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.