Hi Everyone,
This e-mail contains input for the ballot resolution
of Appeals Process P&P revision ballot. Specifically, this document
contains the following:
1)
Results of ballot
2)
Comments received on the ballot
3)
Known relevant rules from CS SAB and SA
As always, please identify any errors or admission
in this material! Note that this ballot resolution will also draw from
the procedures drawn up to handle the 802.20 appeals in progress.
Proposed resolutions on this ballot will be forth coming, but may not be
available much before the San Francisco meeting.
Thanks,
Mat
Matthew Sherman
Vice
Chair, IEEE 802
Technology
Consultant
Communications
Technology Research
AT&T
Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room
B255, Building 103
180
Park Avenue
P.O.
Box 971
Florham
Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone:
+1 (973) 236-6925
Fax:
+1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL:
mjsherman@att.com
Dear EC members,
Below is the status on the LMSC P&P Revision
Ballot on Appeals Process. The ballot closed May 7, 2003 11:59 PM
EDT. Please identify any inaccuracies you detect in my status report. Note
that due to the large number of rules issues all running at once, I am not now
taking the time to summarize all the comments to date as I have in the past.
I will generate a summary document and distribute it before comment resolution
on this ballot occurs.
Best Regards,
Mat
Ballot Results and comments as of 5/8/03
00 Paul
Nikolich
DIS
Comments Provided
01 Geoff Thompson DIS
Comments Provided
02 Matthew
Sherman
DNV
03 Buzz
Rigsbee
DNV
04 Bob
O'Hara
DNV
05 Bill Quackenbush DIS
Comments Provided
06 Tony
Jeffree DIS
Comments Provided
07 Bob
Grow
DIS
Comments Provided
08 Stuart
Kerry
DNV
09 Bob
Heile
DNV
10 Roger
Marks
DNV
11 Mike
Takefman
DNV
12 Carl
Stevenson APR
Comments Provided
13 Jim
Lansford
DNV
-------------------------------------------------------
totals: 1 APR 5 DIS 0
ABS 8 DNV
10 APPROVES (2/3 majority) are required to PASS.
Ballot FAILS pending comment resolution.
Ballot Comments:
Bill Quackenbush [billq@attglobal.net] Wed
5/7/2003 11:06 PM
Section: 3.7 Comment
Type: E Part
of No vote: N
Comment / Explanation: In the first sentence of the section, change
"it should be" to "it is"
Recommended Change: See comment
Section: 3.7 Comment
Type: S Part
of No vote: Y
Comment / Explanation: The individual may decide to not proceed with a
formal complaint
Recommended Change: Insert before the phrase" the following formal
procedure shall be invoked" at the end of the last sentence in the section
"and a formal complaint is filed"
Section: 3.7.1 Comment
Type: S Part
of No vote: Y
Comment / Explanation: I have no idea what the phrases "in good
standing with the LMSC" and "have achieved status through
attendance" mean in this context.
Recommended Change: Clarify
Section: 3.7.2 Comment
Type: S Part
of No vote: Y
Comment / Explanation: As written the phrase "including any
adverse effects" in the second sentence appears to refer to adverse effects
of the objection which I do not believe is the intent.
Recommended Change: Fix
Section: 3.7.2 Comment
Type: E Part
of No vote: Y
Comment / Explanation: Use of the term "objection" is
problematic.
Recommended Change: Change "objection" to "issue" or
"complaint" throughout the document as appropriate
Section: 3.7.2 Comment
Type: S Part
of No vote: Y
Comment / Explanation: In the sentence "The appellant shall
include complete documentation of all statements in the complaint.", whose
statements and statements about what are being referred to?
Recommended Change: Clarify
Section: 3.7.3 Comment
Type: S Part
of No vote: Y
Comment / Explanation: To what statements does the phrase "all
statements" in the last sentence of the section refer? Whose statements
and about what?
Recommended Change: Clarify
Section: 3.7.4 Comment
Type: S Part
of No vote: Y
Comment / Explanation: At the end of the first sentence of the section
change the phrase "made in the dispute" to "made in the process
of resolving the dispute"
Recommended Change: See comment
Section: 3.7.4 Comment
Type: E Part
of No vote: Y
Comment / Explanation: At the beginning of the second sentence of the
section insert "of the panel" after the phrase "At least two
members" for greater clarity.
Recommended Change: See comment
Section: 3.7.5 Comment
Type: E Part
of No vote: N
Comment / Explanation: In the first sentence of the section insert
"and" after "exceptional circumstances".
Recommended Change: See comment
Paul Nikolich [paul.nikolich@att.net] Wed
5/7/2003 8:31 AM
I vote disapprove. I concur with Bob Grow's comments
with the following additional editorial comment:
-last sentence of 3.7.2 Complaint: replace 'LMSC plenary
meeting' with LMSC plenary session'
Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [carlstevenson@agere.com] Wed
5/7/2003 5:53 AM
Approve, with the hope that there will be
some additional review and consideration
of anyone's ideas for potential
improvements before final adoption at the July plenary.
Tony Jeffree [tony@jeffree.co.uk] Wed
5/7/2003 12:56 AM
Comment:
In 3,7.1, it is not clear to me what "and have achieved status through attendance"
means. I think that the intent is (and should be) "and are current voting
members of an 802 Working Group/TAG".
This again highlights the fact that we don't have any convenient definition in
the P&P of what it means to be a member of 802 (as distinct from a member
of one of its groups).
Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com] Mon
4/7/2003 5:40 PM
3.7.1 Appeals pool
Comment: I don't know what "in
good standing with the LMSC and have achieved status through attendance"
means. Section 4 defines the LMSC members as the SEC and the sponsor
ballot pools. There is no attendance requirement for being in
a sponsor ballot pool. Therefore, I assume the intent was
a member in good standing of an active 802 WG/TAG.
I also think a broader pool is important
as recommended by Geoff, but current WG officers is rather vague because
of the inconsistent WG structure across 802. Is the 802.11 Publicity
Chair included? Are TF chairs included? Are TF vice chairs
included? This probably needs to be limited to the WG officers that must
be and are confirmed by the SEC.
The use of the word "may" is a
problem also. This implies that a list will be maintained of who is
in the appeals pool and who isn't. It is best to define who is in and who
is out without the option of may.
Suggested Remedy: The appeals pools
consists of:
a. Current members in good standing
of the SEC who have attended both the opening and closing SEC meetings at
two of the last four plenary sessions.
b. Former members of the SEC who are
members in good standing of an active WG/TAG having qualified for member
status through attendance.
c. Current WG/TAG Vice Chairs
confirmed by the SEC who are members in good standing of an active WG/TAG
having qualified for member status through attendance.
3.7.2 Compliant
Comment: The use of
"(Secretary)" is I fear an opening to future ambiguity.
Suggested Remedy: Use "SEC
Recording Secretary" for all references.
3.7.4 Appeals panel
Comment: I think the last line
should have been edited differently from the source. The text on which
this is based refers the matter to the Standards Board for appointment of the
panel. The SA Operations Manual lets the same person making initial
appointments to the panel make arbitrary appointments when the parties to the
appeal can't agree on the panel. For us, I believe the escalation should
be to the entire SEC when a panel can't be chosen, not to the Computer
Society. I bet the SAB would throw it back if no sponsor hearing was
conducted.
Suggested Remedy: To allow the SEC
to arbitrarily appoint a panel or to hear the case, I recommend replacing
"Computer Society Standards Activity with "the matter shall be
referred to the SEC for consideration."
3.7.5 Conduct of the Hearing
Comment: Though the Robert's Rules
paragraph is identical to other IEEE rules, I find it a problem. We
do not mandate that our groups use any specific version of Roberts Rules [sic]
(see 5.1.4). Either we need to tighten up 5.1.4 to be the current edition
of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (as Geoff suggested), or this needs to
be rewritten to recognize that a WG may have chosen another edition of Robert's
Rules for their operation. In either case, since most of our appeals
come WG/TAG and they have their own rules, we need to also recognize any WG/TAG
rules that override Robert's.
Suggested Remedy: Change the last
paragraph of 3.7.5 to read: "The rules contained in the current edition of
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised
shall apply to questions of parliamentary procedure for the hearing not covered
herein, nor covered within the rules of the group for the action under
appeal."
Change the last sentence of 5.1.4 to
read: "The current edition of Robert's
Rules of Order Newly Revised shall be used in combination with these
operating rules to achieve this balance."
3.7.7 Request for Re-hearing
Comment: The last sentence has been
inappropriately edited, and could be improved over its original source.
As written if one complains about a re-hearing, then it is referred to the
higher body. The intent is only when the decision is to accept the
decision of the panel that it is referred to the higher body.
Suggested Remedy: Change the last
sentence of the paragraph to read: "If the decision of the SEC is to
adopt the report of the appeals panel, further appeals shall be referred to the
Computer Society SAB."
Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com] Mon
4/7/2003 12:49 PM
My comments:
In 3.7.1 Replace the text:
Former SEC members who are in good standing with the
LMSC and have achieved status through attendance may also be included in the
appeals pool.
With the text:
Former
SEC members who are in good standing with the LMSC and have achieved status
through attendance may also be included in the appeals pool. Current Working
Group elected officers who are in good standing with the LMSC and have achieved
status through attendance may also be included in the appeals pool.
In 3.7.5 Replace the text:
Robert’s Rules of Order
(latest edition) shall apply to questions of parliamentary procedure for the
hearing not covered herein.
With the text (per the citation guidelines in RROONR):
The
rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s
Rules of Order Newly Revised shall apply to questions of
parliamentary procedure for the hearing not covered herein.
Relevant material in CS SAB P&P:
3.1 Abbreviations
CSSC: CS Standards
Committees, i.e. SAB, Sponsors, WGs, SGs
3.3 Relation of
this P&P to CSSC P&P documents
Default requirement: This P&P document
specifies certain default requirements for all CSSC's. Any changes must be in
an approved, written CSSC P&P.
Minimum/maximum requirement: This P&P
document specifies certain default requirements for all CSSC's. Any CSSC specific
changes must be in an approved, written CSSC P&P.
4.8.3.3
Appeal, Removal and Announcement
Any
Officer suspended or removed against their wishes has the option of appeal. The
appeal shall be made to the CSSC (if the action was taken by the CSSC), then to
the NHL committee, then to the Sponsor, then to the SAB, and then to the CS
Board of Governors. If an individual so suspended or removed provides notice in
writing within ten (10) days to CS VP of Standards that an appeal will be made,
public announcement of a change of Officer shall not take place until after the
appeal has been heard and a decision rendered.
4.14 Conflicts
between CSSCs and Other SDO WGs
- (f) Actively encourage
individuals within one SDO to participate in the other SDOs activities.
Whenever practical, given the differing membership requirements,
individuals within the SDO should be actively encouraged to participate in
CS standards activities, and IEEE working group members should be actively
encouraged to participate in the SDO's standards activities. This effort
should include education on each organization's rules and procedures. CS
working groups are required to follow IEEE rules, and SDO working groups
are required to follow the SDO's rules. Alleged violations of an
organization's rules shall be dealt with through that organization's
appeals process and mechanisms for addressing such issues. In the case of
the CS, such allegations shall be made first to the WG or SG, then to the
Sponsor of the working group, then to the SAB, then to the IEEESB. The
Sponsor may choose to sponsor multiple PARs covering the same problem
space.
9.0
APPEALS
9.1 Purpose
Persons
who have directly and materially affected interests and who have been or will
be adversely affected by a standard within a CSSC's jurisdiction, or by the
lack thereof, shall have the right to appeal procedural actions or inaction of
the committee or its officers. Appeals first shall be made to the Chair of the
CSSC, before escalation to the next higher level committee. [Every attempt
should be made to resolve concerns informally, since it should be recognized
that a formal appeals process has a tendency to negatively, and sometimes
permanently, affect the goodwill and cooperative relationships between and
among persons. If the informal attempts to resolve a concern are unsuccessful,
the following formal procedure shall be invoked.]
9.2 Complaint
The
appellant shall file a written complaint with the CSSC Chair as soon as
possible after an action, but not later than thirty (30) days after the
appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, of the action to be appealed.
The complaint shall state: the nature of the objection(s), including any
adverse affects; the sections(s) of those procedures or the standard(s) that
are at issue; actions or inaction that are at issue; and the specific remedialaction(s)
that would satisfy the appellant's concerns. Previous efforts to resolve the
objection(s) and the outcome of each shall be noted, and the official record of
all challenged actions shall be included.
9.3 Response
Within
thirty (30) days after receipt of the complaint, the
respondent (Chair, Vice-Chair or Secretary) shall respond in
writing to the appellant, specifically addressing each allegation of fact in
the complaint to the extent of the respondent's knowledge.
9.4 Hearing
If
the appellant and the respondent are unable to resolve the
written complaint in a manner consistent with these procedures, the
Chair or the Secretary of the CSSC shall schedule a hearing with an appeals
panel on a date agreeable to all participants, giving at least ten (10) working
days notice.
9.5 Appeals Panel
The
appeals panel shall consist of three (3) individuals who have not been directly
involved in the matter in dispute and who will not be materially or directly
affected by any decision made, or to be made, in the dispute. At least two (2)
members shall be acceptable to the appellant and at least two(2) shall be
acceptable to the respondent.
9.6 Conduct of the
Hearing
The
appellant has the burden of documenting adverse effects,
improper actions or inaction, and the efficacy of the requested
remedial action. The respondent has the burden of demonstrating that the CSSC
and the officers took all actions in compliance with these procedures, and that
the requested remedial action would be ineffective or detrimental. Each party
may adduce other pertinent arguments, and members of the appeals panel may
address questions to individuals.
9.7 Decision
The
appeals panel shall render its decision in writing within
thirty (30) days, stating findings of fact and conclusions, with
reasons therefor, based on a preponderance of the evidence. Consideration may
be given to the following positions, among others, in formulating the decision:
- (a) Finding for the appellant,
remanding the action to the CSSC or the NHL committee with a specific
statement of the issues and facts in regard to which fair and equitable
action was not taken.
- (b)
Finding for the respondent, with a specific statement of the facts that
demonstrate fair and equitable treatment of the appellant and the
appellant's objections
- (c) Finding that new,
substantive evidence has been introduced, and remanding the entire action
to the CSSC or the NHL committee for appropriate reconsideration.
9.8 Further
Appeal
If
the appellant gives notice that further appeal is intended, a full record of
the complaint, response, hearing and decision shall be submitted to the Chair
of the NHL committee. The appeal may proceed through each level of committee up
to and including the SAB, for standards projects which have not yet been
approved by the IEEE Standards Board. For Projects which have already been
approved by the IEEE Standards Board, the appeals process described in the IEEE
Standards Operations Manual [Ref. 5] and IEEE Standards Board Bylaws [Ref. 13]
shall apply, and shall be directed to the IEEE Standards Board.
10.0 INTERPRETATIONS
Requests for interpretations of this document shall be
directed to the CSVP for Standards. The CS VP for Standards, or delegate, shall
respond to the request within thirty (30) days of receipt. Such response shall
indicate either an interpretation, or a specified time limit when such an
interpretation will be forthcoming. The time limit shall be no longer than is
reasonable to allow consideration of and recommendations on the issue by, for
example, the Policies and Procedures Committee of the SAB. Interpretations offered
by the CS VP of standards, either directly, or on the recommendation of the SAB
Policies and Procedures Committee, are subject to the concurrence of the SAB,
should the requester of the interpretation choose to appeal the interpretation.
Relevant content from IEEE-SA STANDARDS BOARD OPERATIONS
MANUAL
5.1.1 Responsibilities of the Sponsor
The Sponsor shall be responsible for the development and coordination
of the standards project, and for
supervising the standards project from inception to completion. The
Sponsor also shall be responsible for
the maintenance of standards after their approval by the IEEE-SA
Standards Board. As part of this
responsibility, each Sponsor shall operate in accordance with a written
set of policies and procedures (P &
P). Such P & P shall not be in conflict with the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual.
Sponsors
should note that there are model operating procedures available for
adoption by the Sponsor.
In the case of a Sponsor that is a committee of an IEEE Society, the
Society may develop a common set of P
& P for standards development that is applicable to all Sponsors in
that Society. Individual Sponsors within
the Society may have specific P & Ps in addition, but these shall
not be in conflict with the Society P & P.
The P&P for the Sponsor shall define the process by which the
Sponsor handles appeals (see subclause 5.4
of the IEEE-SA Standards Board
Bylaws and 5.8).
5.4.3.2 Resolution of comments, objections,
and negative votes
The Sponsor shall make every attempt to resolve comments, objections,
and negative votes that are
accompanied by comments. Comments that advocate changes in the
document, whether technical or
editorial, may be accepted, revised, or rejected. It should be borne in
mind that documents are professionally
edited prior to publication.
Comments received before the close of ballot from persons who are not
in the balloting group require
acknowledgement sent to the commentor and shall be presented to the
comment resolution group for
consideration. Comments received after the close of ballot will be
forwarded to the Sponsor for
consideration at the next update of the standard. If a comment is
received as a result of a public review
process, that comment will be addressed by the Sponsor and a disposition
returned to the commentor, along
with information concerning their right of appeal.
8.1 Standards
Upon approval by the IEEE-SA Standards Board, the standard shall be
published as an IEEE standard. The
Sponsor shall be notified of the approval. Balloters with unresolved
negative ballot comments shall be
informed of the approval and of their right to appeal.
Relevant content from IEEE-SA STANDARDS BOARD BYLAWS
5.4 Appeals
Persons who have directly and materially affected interests and who have
been, or could reasonably be
expected to be, adversely affected by a standard within the
IEEE’s jurisdiction, or by the lack thereof, shall
have the right to appeal substantive technical or procedural actions or
inaction of the committee, provided
a) That the appellant shall have exhausted the appeals procedures of
any relevant subordinate
committees prior to filing an appeal with the IEEE-SA Standards Board;
and
b) That technically based appeals, or technical elements of appeals,
shall be resolved at or below the
Sponsor level.
Further instructions concerning appeals procedure can be found in subclause
5.8 of the IEEE-SA Standards
Board Operations Manual.
Matthew Sherman
Vice
Chair, IEEE 802
Technology
Consultant
Communications
Technology Research
AT&T
Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room
B255, Building 103
180
Park Avenue
P.O.
Box 971
Florham
Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone:
+1 (973) 236-6925
Fax:
+1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL:
mjsherman@att.com