FW: [802SEC] Ballot periods
Title: Message
At 02:03 PM 2/6/2003 -0700, pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
Unfortunately, at some point I cleared the old
files like past manuals off my disk so I don't have the reference. I'm fairly
certain that there was a recirculation time period specified in the old rules.
30 days would have been the original ballot, not the recirculation
time.
I have looked through things for quite a few years.
I can't find anything.
Geoff
Pat
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
- Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 12:56 PM
- To: pat_thaler@agilent.com
- Cc: bob.grow@intel.com; Geoff Thompson; r.b.marks@ieee.org;
stds-802-sec@ieee.org
- Subject: RE: [802SEC] Ballot periods
Pat-
I can't find anything about timing at all in the 92 Stds Manual
The only thing I find in the 93 IEEE Standards Operations Manual is:
"The ballot shall close at the end of the business day on the date
specified on the ballot or when a 75% return of the balloting group is
received. this extension for receipt of a 75% return shall not be longer
than 60 days."
Going backward can't find anything
earlier either til I get to '82 (I have a gap from '82 to '88)
1982
says 30 days
Do you have definitive reference that is
later?
Geoff
At 11:41 AM 2/6/2003 -0700,
pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
There actually was in the past a rule
about recirculation ballot duration, but it wasn't in the 802 rules. It
was in the IEEE Standards Operations Manual. Around the time that the SA
was created, they were trying to give groups more latitude to speed the
process they took the time period out. 802 rules didn't have time
durations for sponsor ballot because that was adequately controlled by
IEEE Standards rules at the time they were
created.
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Grow, Bob
[mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday,
February 06, 2003 10:06 AM
To: Geoff Thompson; Roger B. Marks
Cc:
stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Ballot
periods
Geoff:
I agree. My assumption is that
a WG chair has no authority to pick a shorter ballot period than that
specified in the rules. The WG Chair isn't the sponsor, (as IEEE
staff has so clearly pointed out to me in doing a PAR
presubmission). I know of no explicit delegation of sponsor
authority that allows the WG Chair to pick their own ballot periods,
etc. My assumption is the ballot center is giving 802 WG Chairs
significant freedom based on history. Until recently, WG Chairs have
followed the traditional policy, using the same periods that were
specified for WG ballots.
--Bob Grow
-----Original
Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:05 PM
To: Roger B. Marks
Cc: Geoff
Thompson; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Ballot
periods
Roger-
Again I may have been a little too
imprecise.
I think you are correct in that the OR never spec'd it. I
didn't research
that one
It used to be much more firmly in the
hands of the person who was Sponsor
(i.e. Don Loughry) and he was not
particularly inclined to write rules for
himself. The tone of all of
that changed on "The Dark and Stormy Night"
which caused the
proletariat to actually look at the rules and start
putting the
pressure on to fix them.
Before TD&SN the rules were mostly of
the flavor that WG Chairs and the
Sponsor had all of the power and
discretion.
So, I won't bet you a steak dinner but I'll buy you one
since we gonna be
in Texas.
I do stand by my position that we
should default to the only rules that we
have for letter ballots until
we have something explicitly
different.
Cheers,
Geoff
At 05:43 PM 2/5/2003 -0700,
Roger B. Marks wrote:
>Geoff,
>
>When you said "Our
P&P have screwed up because they narrowed the scope of
>a
letter ballot" [so as not to apply to Sponsor Ballot], I wondered if you
>meant that we screwed up last year when we changed the language
regarding
>WG Letter Ballots, including the duration. To check, I
looked up the prior
>rules, and the situation was identical: no
reference to Sponsor Ballot
>rules or durations.
>
>I
don't have any older rules, but I'll bet a steak dinner that the LMSC
>rules have never specified Sponsor Ballot durations since I've
been coming
>to 802 meetings (i.e., since November
1998).
>
>Roger
>
>
>At 11:13 AM -0800
03/02/05, Geoff Thompson
wrote:
>>Roger-
>>
>>My profound apologies. In
my zeal to protect the process I was paying
>>insufficient
attention to courtesy.
>>
>>More
appropriately...
>>
1) It isn't the Balloting's job to determine balloting periods,
>> it is clearly
ours.
>> 2) I
don't trust their judgement with respect to the defaults
>> they
may throw at us on whatever basis they decide (unless they quote
>> chapter and verse of their P&P that over ride
ours).
>>
>>RE your
statement:
>>
>>>Under the status quo, I do not agree
that we are in danger of ballots
>>>being overturned on
appeal for following the Balloting Center defaults
>>>(29-30
days for a ballot and 9-10 for a recirc). Those defaults are in
>>>accordance with LMSC and IEEE-SA rules.
>>Our
rules currently say: "...for recirculation ballots, ..., the response
>>time shall be at least fifteen
days."
>>
>>Our P&P have screwed up because they
narrowed the scope of a letter
>>ballot to be that of a "Working
Group Letter Ballot" instead of having a
>>procedure for "letter
ballots" and then requiring Working Groups (among
>>others) to
use it.
>>
>>Clearly the scope of LMSC is both Sponsor
and Working Group Ballots (ever
>>since we became
"self-sponsored" and broke away from TCCC years ago).
>>This
shows up in our P&P in clause 1 paragraph
3
>>
>>
>>The P802 Sponsor Executive Committee
serves as the Executive Committee
>>for both the sponsor ballot
groups as well as the Standards Development
>>Groups. The
standards sponsoring organization is designated as the LAN
>>MAN
Standards Committee (LMSC) and includes the Sponsor Executive
>>Committee, a balloting pool for forming LMSC Sponsor balloting
groups,
>>and a set of Standards Development
Groups.
>>
>>AND
>>
>>
>>3.1
Function
>> The function of the Executive Committee is to
oversee the operation of
>> the LAN MAN Standards Committee in
the following
ways:
>>
>>j) Oversee
formation of sponsor ballot groups and sponsor ballot
>>process.
>>
>>AND
>>
>>
>>Clause
4
>> The LMSC Sponsor Ballots will be administered by the
Executive
>> Committee in accordance with Section 5 of the IEEE
Standards Manual and
>> Procedure 7 of these
rules.
>>
>>There is, of course, no such thing as "the
IEEE Standards Manual" anymore.
>>The last one was published in
1992 (paper only).
>>I do happen to have one, I could bring it to
DFW.
>>
>>The IEEE Standards Manual clearly says its our
job, not that of
>>Balloting. The IEEE Standards Manual does not
mention balloting periods
>>except for something about 60 days
for mandatory coordination.
>>
>>It says, in part, (5.2)
"The Sponsor is responsible for supervising the
>>standards
project from inception to completion."
>>
>>In sum,
since:
>>
>>
>>1) It is our
responsibility
>> 2) We don't explicitly call out the
periods for Sponsor Letter Ballots
>>
>>I believe that
the (implicit) rule till we get things fixed is our
>>existing
letter ballot procedures.
>>We gotta fix the obsolete reference
to "The IEEE Standards Manual" in
>>clause
4.
>>
>>Again, my
apologies.
>>
>>Geoff
>>
>>At 09:54 PM
2/4/2003 -0700, Roger B. Marks
wrote:
>>
>>>Geoff,
>>>
>>>I
object to your characterization of my position. I don't see a record
>>>of me saying "we should just defer to whatever staff
decides to do".
>>>What I said is that the 802 rules do not
specify a minimum duration for
>>>sponsor ballots or sponsor
ballot recircs.
>>>
>>>If we change the rules to
specify minimum durations then, of course, we
>>>ought to
make sure that the Balloting Center runs our ballots
accordingly.
>>>
>>>Under the status quo, I do not
agree that we are in danger of ballots
>>>being overturned on
appeal for following the Balloting Center defaults
>>>(29-30
days for a ballot and 9-10 for a recirc). Those defaults are in
>>>accordance with LMSC and IEEE-SA rules. [The IEEE-SA
doesn't say much
>>>about this, although the Standards
Companion says "Recirculations
>>>normally do not take the
time that regular ballots do--most are only
>>>about 10 days
in length."]
>>>
>>>I would support an LMSC rules
change to require minimum durations on
>>>sponsor ballots and
recircs. 30 days and 10 days would be my
preference.
>>>
>>>Roger
>>>
>>>
>>>At
4:06 PM -0800 03/02/04, Geoff Thompson
wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bob-
>>>>
>>>>I
believe that we screwed up on this one. I thoroughly support your
>>>>effort. The SA staff is in no better shape than we are
in this area and
>>>>remember that, in spite of VERY long
standing practice we had NO
>>>>FOUNDATION WHATSOEVER in
our OR/P&P for any recirc to less than 30 days
>>>>for
the majority of the last 20
years.
>>>>
>>>>It is my position that Roger
was incorrect when he said that we should
>>>>just defer
to whatever staff decides to do. This is an area where we
>>>>could lose an appeal. I believe that the SA should be
providing
>>>>balloting services to Sponsors under Sponsor
rules. Sponsors, in turn,
>>>>are supposed to get their
P&P approved by AudCom. It is not a rigorous
>>>>system. Paul ultimately is on the hook for the
decision.
>>>>
>>>>I would like to take him
off the
hook...
>>>>
>>>> ...and
remove any uncertainty regarding our
system.
>>>>
>>>>My position will be that,
with an underlying rationale to see that the
>>>>ballot is
in hand for at least 10 days, our rules need to say that all
>>>>802 ballot (i.e. Working Group and LMSC)
recirculations will be at
>>>>least 15 days from the
timestamp of the announcing e-mail until the
>>>>close of
ballot.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for grabbing the
ball on
this.
>>>>
>>>>Geoff
>>>>
>>>>At
12:41 PM 1/24/2003 -0800, Grow, Bob
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Colleagues:
>>>>>
>>>>>This
is to inform you that I intend to propose a rules change to
>>>>>enforce minimum ballot periods for our Sponsor
ballots. I also intend
>>>>>to raise the issue of
ballot periods to ProCom for all SA ballots. It
>>>>>is now clear to me that the ballot center does not
enforce any
>>>>>particular ballot period. (I
also can't find any rules/P&P that
>>>>>requires
them to enforce any arbitrary minimum.) I believe the ballot
>>>>>center operates to a default -- the ballot being
open for some period
>>>>>of time on 10 dates in the US
eastern time zone (probably restricted
>>>>>by the
announcement being sent during their working hours). In an
>>>>>exchange trying to determine how the ballot center
counted "days", I
>>>>>postulate what I thought was a
theoretical question asking if the
>>>>>period would be
have to be 10 days (i.e., 10 * 24 hours) or only 10
>>>>>calendar dates. At the time the question was
posed, I thought the
>>>>>ballot center was enforcing a
minimum ballot period what I got in
>>>>>response
was an offer for a SB recirculation period a day shorter
>>>>>(i.e., 8.xxx
days).
>>>>>
>>>>>I just received a
particularly onerous example of what is being
>>>>>allowed by the ballot center. I received the
announcement slightly
>>>>>before noon Pacific
Time. The ballot closes on February 2 at 11:59 pm
EST.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, for me, I have
9.375 days to respond (and four of those days are
>>>>>on a weekend). For many international
participants, they
>>>>>realistically will have much
less time with this ballot (many won't
>>>>>see the
announcement until their Monday morning). If one or two of
>>>>>you would like to review my proposed rules change
text prior to
>>>>>distribution to the SEC I would
appreciate a response.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bob
Grow
>>>>>Chair, IEEE 802.3 Working
Group
>>>>>bob.grow@ieee.org