Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802SEC] Results for +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on Executive Committee Title



Bob,

 

Thanks for trying.  I’ll keep looking.

 

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:18 PM
To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Results for +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on Executive Committee Title

 

I have an old 11/98 MS Word copy but the figures are imported in that, and don't seem to be editable.

 

--Bob Grow

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 7:29 AM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Results for +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on Executive Committee Title

Hi Everyone,

 

Does anyone know where the original files are for Figures 1 and in the LMSC P&P are?  I need to edit them but can’t find the source files.

 

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:06 AM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] Results for +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on Executive Committee Title

 

Dear EC members,

 

First my apologies for not reporting the final results of this ballot sooner.  The ballot failed, mostly due to lack of response.  Below, please find input material for comment resolution on the ballot.  Specifically please find 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 omissions in this material! 

 

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

 

 

 

 

                                   

 

Ballot Results – Closed  5/14/03 11:59 PM EDT

 

00 Paul Nikolich                   DIS                  Comments Received      

01 Geoff Thompson                  DIS                  Comments Received    

02 Matthew Sherman                                 DNV

03 Buzz Rigsbee                                    DNV    

04 Bob O'Hara              APR    

05 Bill Quackenbush                        ABS          Comments Received  

06 Tony Jeffree            APR

07 Bob Grow                                        DNV

08 Stuart Kerry                                    DNV

09 Bob Heile                                       DNV

10 Roger Marks             APR

11 Mike Takefman           APR  

12 Carl Stevenson          APR                          Comments Received

13 Jim Lansford                                    DNV

XX Reza Arefi                                           Comments Received  

 

-------------------------------------------------------

            totals:      5 APR   2 DIS   1 ABS   6 DNV

 

10 APPROVES (2/3 majority) are required to PASS.

 

 

 

 

Ballot comments:

 

Bill Quackenbush [billq@attglobal.net]                               Thu 5/15/2003 10:52 PM

 

Geoff,

 

The long and the short answers are the same, none.

 

You can classify my "abstain" vote as whimsical.  I am not ready to vote

"approve" as there are some issues I believe need to be resolved.  I am

in general agreement with the goal of the proposed change (consistency),

but it become unclear, at least to me, as to whether the Exec should be

called the Executive Committee (or EC) or the Sponsor Executive

Committee (or SEC) to agree with IEEE standards terminology.  And so not

having a strong negative comment against the proposal I decided to vote

"abstain" fully knowing that is was equivalent to a "disapprove".

 

I was wondering if someone would ask about my weird vote :-)

 

 

 

Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]                                  Thu 5/15/2003 11:49 AM

 

Let's see,

 

In mail ballots, abstains go in the denominator along with Approve,

Disapprove, and DNV

but they don't go in the numerator.

 

So what is the (engineering, not political) difference between this and a

disapprove?

 

 

Bill Quackenbush [billq@attglobal.net]                               Thu 5/15/2003 6:32 AM

 

I vote Abstain with the following comments.

 

     1) I agree that the reference to the "Executive Committee" should be

consistent throughout the P&P.  However, I do not have a strong

preference as whether that reference should be "EC", "SEC", "Executive

Committee" or "Sponsor Executive Committee".  I do believe that what

ever the standard reference is, it should agree with the terminology for

an IEEE standards developing committee.

 

     2) The use of abreviations is inconsistent in the P&P. "WG" is used

only in sections 5.1.5.2.3 and 5.3 and Procedure 2, otherwise "Working

Group" is used.  "TAG" and "Technical Advisory Group" are both used

throughout the P&P with no obvious pattern. "SG" is used only in Section

5.3, otherwise "Study Group" is used.  We need a rule on abreviation use.

 

     3) The term "Sponsor Executive Committee" appears in both Figures 1 and

2 on page 3.  It would appear that these should be changed to "Executive

Committee" to be consistent with the rest of this proposed change.

 

     4) "EC" is used without definition in the next to last paragraph of

section 2.  "EC" is not defined until section 3.  "EC" should not be

used before it is defined.

 

 

Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]                                  Wed 5/14/2003 4:33 PM

 

Roger-

 

You may be right.

I need to look into it in terms of documentation.

My experience has always been (at the IEEE level) that they look to The

Sponsor, the person, as being ultimately responsible rather than as a

representative of a governing body.

 

If this is the case then our procedures should be structured so that our

leadership organization is recognizable to higher powers, as well as have

the structure that we wish it to have.

 

That's all. No ulterior motive, just want the system to be able to hold up

under stress should it ever arrive.

 

 

Roger B. Marks [r.b.marks@ieee.org]                               Wed 5/14/2003 2:25 PM

 

Geoff,

 

Can you explain what you mean when you say that the Computer Society

and IEEE-SA "don't recognize anything other than 'Sponsor', the

person (Nikolich)"? My understanding is that the sponsor of 802

standards projects is the LMSC, not the LMSC Chair.

 

The IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws (5.2.2) says "Sponsors of IEEE

standards projects are committees" and provides a lot more detail.

 

The RevCom submittal form asks the question:

     "4. SPONSOR (Full name of society/committee)"

 

The PAR form asks:

     "Name of Sponsoring Society and Committee"

 

So I think that the Sponsor is not a person.

 

 

Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]                                  Wed 5/14/2003 1:48 PM

 

I support the Nikolich comment regarding the introduction of yet another new term "EC" (In my mind, the term "EC" is stuck at the name for "Educational Comics", the original name of the entity that published MAD Comix/Magazine)

Further, I am uncertain that the shuffling that this does reflects the actual organization that is required of us by the Computer Society and IEEE-SA. It is my understanding that they don't recognize anything other than "Sponsor", the person (Nikolich). This fact (or lack thereof) needs to be explained in all of this.

 

 

Paul Nikolich [paul.nikolich@att.net]                                   Sat 5/10/2003 2:08 PM

 

Comment:  It is not necessary to introduce the acronym 'EC' into the document.  'Executive Committee' should be spelled out in full whever it is used.  If the acronym 'EC' is replaced by 'Executive Committee' in the document, I will change my vote to APPROVE.

 

 

Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [carlstevenson@agere.com]                             Wed 5/7/2003 4:56 AM

 

Approve with a comment - make sure that the TAG rules change text contains

all of the updates as it is incorporated.

 

 

Reza Arefi [reza@arraycomm.com]                                   Mon 4/14/2003 1:26 PM

 

Figure 1 and Figure 2 also need to be modified to reflect the change.

 

 

 

 

Relevant material in CS SAB P&P:

 

 

 

3.1 Abbreviations

CSSC: CS Standards Committees, i.e. SAB, Sponsors, WGs, SGs

 SEC: Sponsor Executive Committee

 

 

3.2 Definitions

Sponsor: A group of individuals who have a professed interest in the development of standards (either by direct participation or by the process of review) In technological areas that fall under the general scope of interest of the Computer Society.

Sponsor Balloting Body: Eligible IEEE or CS-affiliate members, SA members, invited experts, ORs, and Organizational Entities who have returned a properly completed Invitation to Ballot within the established deadline, on a specific draft standard.

Sponsor Executive Committee: A subcommittee of a Sponsor that has been delegated certain duties and responsibilities by the Sponsor's P&P.

 

4.1 Overview

The IEEE standards development process includes two volunteer groups: a Sponsor, who supervises all phases of the development and maintenance of a standard, and a standards developing committee such as a WG or SG, which is responsible to the Sponsor, and which develops the draft standard. A draft standard is forwarded to the IEEE Standards Board by the Sponsor for action once it has met the IEEE approval criteria.

The development of standards in the CS is governed by a committee structure comprising the SAB at the highest level, to which report Sponsors. Reporting to these Sponsors are WGs which may be responsible for one or more standards projects [large Sponsors, e.g. those with more than 10 WGs, may choose to form Steering Committees responsible for a number WGs with closely related scope and interests]. In turn, WGs may choose to form subcommittees to deal with specific issues, such as a particular document, or a chapter in a document.

4.16 Executive Committee

CSSCs, in their P&Ps, may delegate to a subcommittee the exercise of any of their rights and responsibilities. However the NHL committee shall look to the CSSC itself, and not to the subsidiary committee, as the responsible committee.

 

 

 

 

 

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 8:21 AM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] Current results for +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on Executive Committee Title

 

Dear EC members,

 

Below is the status on the LMSC P&P Revision Ballot on Executive Committee Title.  The ballot closes May 14, 2003 11:59 PM EDT. This is a few days away. I probably will NOT send out another reminder prior to the end of the ballot since I am tied up at the 802.11 interim this week. Please get in your votes and comments so we can have a successful comment resolution on this ballot.  (Remember if you do not vote or abstain it is equivalent to a DISAPPROVE vote). Please identify any inaccuracies you detect in my status report. 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 5/10/03

 

00 Paul Nikolich                   DIS                  Comments Received      

01 Geoff Thompson                                  DNV    

02 Matthew Sherman                                 DNV

03 Buzz Rigsbee                                    DNV    

04 Bob O'Hara              APR    

05 Bill Quackenbush                                DNV  

06 Tony Jeffree            APR

07 Bob Grow                                        DNV

08 Stuart Kerry                                    DNV

09 Bob Heile                                       DNV

10 Roger Marks                                     DNV

11 Mike Takefman           APR  

12 Carl Stevenson          APR                          Comments Received

13 Jim Lansford                                    DNV

XX Reza Arefi                                           Comments Received  

 

-------------------------------------------------------

            totals:      4 APR   1 DIS   0 ABS   9 DNV

 

10 APPROVES (2/3 majority) are required to PASS.

 

 

 

 

 

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