RE: [802SEC] +++SEC Ballot: Rules change for Wireless PARs+++
Disapprove.
I do not believe standing committees as defined in the proposed rules change
is a good solution for the needs. We already have TAGs as an option for
this kind of work. I also will be interested in what our new LMSC Chair
plans for the Regulatory Ombudsman position, and the announced intent to
have two Vice Chairs (wireline and wireless focused). There seems to be
significant potential overlap between these positions and the proposed SC
structure.
Comments on 5.4:
5.1.4.1 describes the Chair's function, not the chair's responsibilites
(5.1.4.3). The responsibilities of a standing committee chair are very
different than a WG chair. It is paradoxical that 5.1.4.1 only talks about
procedural and technical yet this rules change establishes different voting
thresholds than that to which Working Group chairs manage.
I oppose Executive Committee voting privileges for a Standing Committee
Chair, we already have too many appointed votes on the Executive Committee.
Asking the SEC to appoint the chair is a mess. On other appointments, the
SEC confirms (e.g., me as Treasurer).
I disagree with delegating to the SC the full imprimature of the SEC,
designating it as the only point of contact, and yet it is actually speaking
for and controlled by a subset of the Working Groups represented on the SEC.
It is usually easier to create a committe or group than it is to disband it.
If we were to implement standing committees, they should require frequent
reaffirmation.
Comments on 5.4.2:
It is not clear if the interim meeting must be a valid Working Group meeting
or if it could be an interim meeting not meeting the requirements specified
for a Working Group meeting. For example, 802.3 interim meetings are
usually Task Force meetings, not Working Group meetings.
"Important votes" is subjective and prone to later dispute.
In many cases the Secretary position is filled well as an ad hoc
responsibility. Mandating the office is unnecessary.
Comments on the second 5.4.2:
Mandating "straw poll" votes is inappropriate for either technical or
procedural issues. By this section, a straw poll would be required before
voting on approving the agenda, minutes or other procedural issues. (This
section is not defined as only applying to technical votes.)
I see no justification for changing voting thresholds from what is currently
specified in our rules. The only justification I can see for a 2/3
threshold is that there are currently three wireless working groups.
While sympathetic to attendance credit. The language has some problems.
The worst case here is interim meeting attendance credit. It is not clear
if a teleconference counts as an interim meeting credit per this section.
--Bob Grow
-----Original Message-----
From: Hayes, Vic (Vic) [mailto:vichayes@agere.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 3:51 AM
To: 802.0 reflector
Subject: [802SEC] +++SEC Ballot: Rules change for Wireless PARs+++
Dear SEC,
Per the motion passed at the November 2001 meeting, attached you will find
the proposal for the IEEE 802 Rules change to require an additional item for
item to be addressed in PARs regarding spectrum and co-existence for e-mail
ballot.
In addition, you will find the collection of comments received to a call for
comments from the .1, .3, .11, .15 and .16 reflectors.
The ballot opened January 24, 8 AM EDT and closes February 10 5pm EDT. As
the SEC appointed me as the driver of the rules change, I respectfully
request that you send your vote to me.
<<RR-02-011r0_Comments-on-SEC-PARs.doc>>
<<RR-01-029r1_Proposed_Rules_Change_for_Wireless_PARs.doc>>
Regards,
---------------
Vic Hayes
Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies
Zadelstede 1-10
3431 JZ Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 1)
FAX: +31 30 609 7498
e-mail: vichayes@agere.com
http://www.orinocowireless.com/