Re: [STDS-802-16] [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results +++ Editorial 2
My vote is Approve with Comments.
Comment 1: The current P&P says "There are two types of votes in the
WG" and then proceeds to list three types of votes. The third is the
Roll Call Vote. This should listed not as an independent third type
but instead as a subset of "Voting at Meeting". Though this material
would not be changed by the document under ballot, it is an editorial
issue that could be addressed in the ballot.
Remedy: Renumber Subclause 7.2.4.2.3 ("Roll Call Votes") as
7.2.4.2.1.1, under "Voting at Meeting".
Comment 2: With the changes, "WG" becomes both singular and plural.
Likewise "TG" and "SG". This makes the writing significantly more
crude and unpleasant. It also has the potential to introduce
ambiguity. For example, "A petition signed by two-thirds of the
combined members of all WG forces the EC implement the resolution."
is less effective than the original sentence.
Remedy: When plural, change WG => WGs, TG => TAGs, and SG => SGs.
Roger
At 11:11 PM -0400 06/05/28, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>Dear EC members,
>
>Below you will find the current results on this ballot. Please let me
>know if you see any errors in the accounting.
>
>The ballot closes on 5/31/2006 @ 11:59 PM EDT. If you have not already
>done so, please vote and provide any comments prior to that time.
>
>Thanks & Regards,
>
>Mat
>
>
>Voters DNV DIS APP ABS Comments Provided?
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
>
>00 Paul Nikolich APP Yes
>
>01 Mat Sherman APP Yes
>
>02 Pat Thaler DNV
>
>03 Buzz Rigsbee DNV
>
>04 Bob O'Hara APP
>
>05 John Hawkins DNV
>
>06 Tony Jeffree APP
>
>07 Bob Grow DNV
>
>08 Stuart Kerry APP
>
>09 Bob Heile DNV
>
>10 Roger Marks DNV
>
>11 Mike Takefman DNV
>
>12 Mike Lynch DNV
>
>13 Steve Shellhammer APP Yes
>
>14 Jerry Upton DNV
>
>15 Vivek Gupta APP
>
>16 Carl Stevenson APP
>
>---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---
>
>TOTALS DNV DIS APP ABS
>
>total: -09- -00- -08- -00-
>
>
>
>
>
>Ballot Comments:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------
>
>John Barr [john.barr@motorola.com] Mon
>5/1/2006 4:15 PM
>
>
>
>In the P&P Revision Ballot of 060430 on page 31, line 35 a reference is
>made to item 6 above. What is item 6?
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------
>
>Paul Nikolich [paul.nikolich@att.net] Thu
>5/4/2006 7:44 PM
>
>
>
>I have one question on the editorial changes in section 7.1.6.2: why
>did we make the change to "LMSC Recording Secretary" from "EC Recording
>Secretary"?
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------
>
>Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortel.com] Tue
>5/9/2006 12:25 AM
>
>
>
>I don't think this is substantial, in that it would more accurately
>reflect reality.
>
>
>
>Change:
>
>Page 12, Line 15, from: "LMSC standards are developed within a Working
>Group 15 (WG) or Technical Advisory Group (TAG) (see Figure 2)."
>
>
>
>To:
>
>"LMSC standards are developed within a Working Group (WG). A Technical
>Advisory Group (TAG) produces LMSC Recommended Practices or technical
>recommendations regarding LMSC issues (see Figure 2)."
>
>
>
>Page 7, line 38: "WG" should be "WGs" (also several other places too).
>
>
>
>Geoff
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------
>
>Shellhammer, Steve [sshellha@QUALCOMM.COM] Tue
>5/9/2006 1:01 PM
>
>
>
>I believe working groups also produce recommended practices and guides
>sometime. The text implies that if you want to produce a recommended
>practice it should be done in a TAG. I think we should make it clear
>that a working group can produce a standard, a recommended practice or a
>guide; while a TAG can produce a recommended practice or a guide.
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------
>
>Geoff Thompson [gthompso@NORTEL.COM]
>
>
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>At 10:01 AM 5/9/2006 , Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
>
> > I believe working groups also produce recommended practices and
>guides > sometime. The text implies that if you want to produce a
>recommended > practice it should be done in a TAG.
>
>
>
>You are correct. My text didn't quite do the job.
>
>
>
> > I think we should make it clear
>
> > that a working group can produce a standard, a recommended practice
>or a > guide; while a TAG can produce a recommended practice or a
>guide.
>
>
>
>I think so too. Although, a staff member would probably say that
>"standard" covers standards, recommended practices and guides.
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------
>
>Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortel.com] Sun
>5/28/2006 5:49 PM
>
>
>
>[Addresses John Barr note]
>
>
>
>Text from an old version:
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>LMSC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REVISED JULY 16, 2004
>
>FILE: LMSC_P&P_JULY_2004_R0.DOC
>
>
>
>8.2.3 Interim Session Financial Reporting A WG/TAG or WG/TAG subgroup
>shall prepare and submit all financial reports required by IEEE,
>IEEE-SA, Computer Society and LMSC regulations on any of its interim
>sessions for which fees were collected and that did not comply with all
>of the following requirements.
>
>
>
>1. The WG/TAG or WG/TAG subgroup was not the Host of the session.
>
>2. The Host complied with the definition of a host in Section 6.2.1 of
>these P&P.
>
>3. Neither the WG/TAG or WG/TAG subgroup nor any of its officers had any
>financial responsibility for the session including any deficit or
>penalties.
>
>4. Neither the WG/TAG or WG/TAG subgroup nor any of its officers handled
>and/or had or exercised any control over any funds either received for
>the session or disbursed to pay the expenses of the session including
>penalties.
>
>5. Neither the WG/TAG or WG/TAG subgroup nor any of its officers had
>and/or exercised any decision authority over the disposition of any
>surplus funds from the session.
>
>6. Neither the WG/TAG or WG/TAG subgroup nor any of its officers have or
>had any control over or beneficial interest in any surplus funds from
>the session.
>
>
>
>the case of an interim session that is hosted by a single non-IEEE
>entity and for which fees are collected, the usual financial goal is for
>the session to be non-deficit with a minimum surplus. A recommended way
>of achieving this is for the Host to commit to a contribution to the
>session and then reduce that contribution as required to minimize any
>session surplus. It may be most convenient for the Host to not make the
>contribution (transfer the funds) until the size of the contribution
>needed to meet the non-deficit minimum surplus goal is known. If there
>is a surplus, the Host may retain it or dispose of it in any manner it
>chooses that does not violate item 6 above. 8.3 Registration Policy In
>order for an individual to become registered for a given
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------
>
>Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) Sun 5/28/2006
>10:58 PM
>
>
>
>Paul,
>
>
>
>Sorry for the very late reply. The 'formal title' for the position is
>LMSC Recording Secretary (See 7.1.2).
>
>