RE: [802SEC] Concerns about EC process
Bob,
I agree with you in general. We should redo the whole rules document and
base it on the templates from IEEE, taking the good things from it, and
pollinate it with all the good stuff we have in our rules.
For the 2 ballots I did:
When I researched the actions I had to take, I found the problem of having
no way to reach 802. I found that the 802-all list is only maintained on
voluntarily basis.
However, I did the next best thing: I sent the 2 rules changes to the
reflectors of .1, .3, .11, .15 and .16. I forgot .17, though. (In fact, I
asked the Chairs (via 802SEC reflector) to send the material to their
constituency, but I did not see a message on the .1, .13, .11 and .15, so I
took the initiative to do it myself......)
In the ballot e-mail, I included a file with the responses from that
distribution. the most striking comment came from .3 members asking to make
the new PAR requirement applicable to all projects, not only wireless.
Fos details, see below.
---------------
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/
-----Original Message-----
From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 10:52 PM
To: 802.0 reflector
Subject: [802SEC] Concerns about EC process
Colleagues:
I am concerned about our process, I don't think problems are limited to the
two ongoing rules ballots, but perhaps these are the best examples of how
far away from the rules I believe we are operating.
1. I don't think these rules ballots were submitted to the members of IEEE
802 (see 3.6.3).
VH--> Yes, they were.
2. Comments from the membership were not solicited, the only announcement I
could find was addressed only to the SEC (see 3.6.3).
VH--> Yes, they were and I did receive comments, which was distributed to
SEC in the ballot announcement.
3. The EC rules ballots did not open 60 days prior to the plenary (see
3.6.3).
VH--> I am sorry, I missed this part of the rules, mainly because of loss of
time awareness. Paul reminded me that time had passed faster than I
realized.
4. The announced EC rules ballots close date was not 30 days prior to the
plenary (see 3.6.3)
VH--> I thought I did calculate that, how far off was I?
5. I find no provision for extension of the electronic ballot period. (3.4,
3.6). While 3.4.2.1 uses the words "minimum duration of the ballot", the
rules are mute on what extends the period or limits the period. Something
that needs to be cleaned up.
VH--> Agree
6. I find no provision to delegate the conduct of an electronic ballot (see
3.4.2.1). Our rules though do allow delegation of a rules change ballot
(see 3.6.3). So, it has to be a paper ballot to delegate? Perhaps something
to clean up in 3.4.2.1.
VH--> That was beyond my control. The group imposed it on me.
7. The electronic ballot is described with terms like "necessary" and "must
be made prior to the following plenary (see 3.4.2). As much as I disagree
with this restriction, I do not see how either of the rules change ballots
meet this criteria.
VH--> need to study this more.
8. The LMSC chair only votes to break a tie (see 3.4). He voted on one of
the ballots. But wait, our chair is also our vice-chair . . . I'm sooooo
confused!
VH--> I was also embarrassed this time, although Jim did vote many times.
The interpretation was that in e-mail ballots the chair normally can vote.
That is dealt with at least in the WG part of the rules.
In our desire to expedite the processes of the Exec, I think we have left
the rules behind. I am curious if anyone else shares my concern.
--Bob Grow