Re: [802-LMSC] PROPOSED RULES CHANGE
Hi George, Geoff,
I understand the process as it is currently defined by rules and
find it unambiguous. The SDG is responsible for resolving
comments. The SDG, in our case the LMSC, delegates that to the
working groups as provided for in the superior rules. The WGs may
then delegate that to a subset of the WG, e.g. the task group,
task force, or a specific CRG. In both WG 15 and 11 the OM is
clear, and sufficiently flexible to allow some adaptation. For
example, both wireless WGs OMs specify that during a duly
constituted session (plenary or interim), the task group assigned
the project is responsible for comment resolution and to approve
resolutions on behalf of the WG; in WG15 during a session. The
OMs allow for the WG to create a CRG, with specified membership,
which is empowered to resolve comments and approve resolutions on
behalf of the WG.
I do not understand the problem with the current flow-down that
you are seeking to solve. This process has, in most cases, worked
very well for quite some time in WG 15. If a majority of the WG
doesn't wish to empower a CRG, then the motion to form one will
fail. In my 20 ish years of 802.15, I am aware of only once that
a motion to form a CRG has failed. Eliminating this option, which
streamlines the process without any negative effect on the quality
of the draft in most cases, because once in a blue moon it isn't
more efficient, is a bad idea IMO. In the event a CRG fails to
reach the required consensus, the responsibility, the
responsibility reverts to the WG more or less as you propose (with
a slight difference).
I see several issues created by Geoff's proposal.
For SA ballot the ballot group is different than for WG ballots
on the draft. IMO this is a positive feature, not a bug. If I
understand Geoff's proposal, the only way to approve comment
resolutions is to have consensus of all voters in the WG that were
in the WG ballot series pool. Some of those voters may have
ceased participation. Once the draft is submitted to SA ballot,
that pool has completed it's task. The SA ballot "restarts" the
draft review and refinement. Again IMO this "restart" is a good
thing. If we remove the option for the WG to delegate to a
dedicated CRG or to a task group/task force, we may create
significant delays, especially in the later ballots where it it is
possible with the current method to conduct multiple recirculation
ballots between sessions. Again, for WG 15, in the vast majority
of projects (all but 1 that I can recall), this has had only
positive outcomes. Geoff's proposal would either restrict
recirculations to one every 2 months, or add a minimum 10 day WG
electronic ballot to approve comment resolutions so as to begin a
recirculation. I see no benefit.
Note that under the present OMs for the wireless WGs, the WG is
not required to delegate comment resolution. In the event that the
normal approach fails, the WG may revert to pretty close to what
Geoff is proposing, with no change to WG P&Ps, or the OM, at
least for the wireless groups (I have not recently looked at .1
and .3 OMs.
In practice, WG 11 and WG 15 use the delegation differently at
times. Again I think this is a feature, not a bug. There are
quite a few practical differences between the two WGs. Providing
the WG and WG chair flexibility to adapt to the needs of a project
is a good thing. A one size fits all projects approach is not
optimal.
FWIW. Perhaps I am not understanding the problem you perceive.
Best regards
Ben
On 7/3/2026 9:43 AM, George Zimmerman
wrote:
Geoff – I
will add this to the agenda. As this is regarding the WG
P&Ps, and our main item of business is to get the LMSC
P&Ps ready to submit to Audcom, it will be after that
item on the agenda. We may not get to it.
What would
be useful would be to understand just what the proposed text
change to the working group P&Ps would be, and whether,
in fact, the WG P&Ps (or other LMSC level document is
the appropriate place. In looking for the right section of
a document to prepare, it appears that the details of CRGs
are not covered at the LMSC level and are either referred up
to SASB documents or down to WG Ops manuals.
I have
provided some background below to help you and others
prepare for a discussion.
-george
Background:
(all) 802 WG
P&Ps:
Comment
resolution groups are not currently mentioned in the working
group P&Ps.
Section 11,
refers to the comment resolution process, stating, “Comment
resolution, recirculations, etc. should be consistent with
Standards Committee ballot rules and 5.4.3.2 of the IEEE-SA
Standards Board Operations Manual (SASB OM).”
I note that
5.4.3.2 of the SASB OM does not cover comment resolution.
It only covers Voting on the ballot. Comments are in
5.4.3.3 of the SASB OM. This leaves the actual conduct of
WG ballot comment resolution less securely linked to the
superior rules than the voting itself is, since LMSC ballot
rules don’t cover comment resolution either.
Specifically
regarding membership & voting in a CRG, the best I can
find is that CRGs are treated as a subgroup of the working
group (see SASB OM 5.4.3 below), and, as such, under section
5 of the working group P&Ps, “Any resolution of a
subgroup shall be subject to confirmation by the Working
Group, unless previously or otherwise delegated to the
subgroup.” Therefore, the working group voters all have the
ability to overrule any resolution of the CRG. It would
seem that other than that the ballot group of a particular
WG ballot might be the fixed-in-time sample of the WG
membership (and the current WG membership may differ) the WG
membership has the right to approve or modify any action of
the CRG.
SASB OM:
The SASB OM
(in 5.4.3 Conduct of the standards balloting process)
states: “The Standards Committee shall ensure that comment
resolution occurs via a comment resolution group, which is
either the Working Group or a subgroup of the Working
Group.”
WG
Ops Manuals
CRG
procedures are generally found in the individual WG ops
manuals, where the working group has decided to codify
them. See, for example, section 3.9 of the 802.11 ops
manual, or section 5.5 of the 802.15 ops manual.
George
Zimmerman, Ph.D.
President
& Principal
CME
Consulting, Inc.
Experts
in Advanced PHYsical Communications
george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
310-920-3860
As
we discussed briefly...
I
would like to propose discussion of a rules change with
respect to comment resolution of negative votes on
Working Group Ballot.
The
current situation is that adoption of a comment
resolution is taken by a vote of current Working Group
voters participating in the vote.
I
believe that it is proper to change the rule because the
voting body for the motion MAY be significantly
different (but often is not) from the voting body for
the draft.
I
propose that adoption of a
comment resolution is taken by a vote of the members
of the current draft balloting group participating
in the vote (nominally those members attending the
comment resolution meeting).
I
would like to apply the same sort of criteria to SA
ballot but I haven't fully figured out what that would
be. So I am content to consider just WGB at this time.
Please
put this on the agenda for discussion at the rules
meeting. It we get an agreement in principle then we'll
draft text to go into a formally proposed change to the
rules for the next time.
Best
regards and sincerely,
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-LMSC list, click the
following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-LMSC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-LMSC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-LMSC&A=1
