| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Disapprove
3.7.1 Appeals pool
Comment: I don't know what "in good standing with
the LMSC and have achieved status through attendance"
means. Section 4 defines the LMSC members as the SEC and the sponsor
ballot pools. There is no attendance requirement for being in a sponsor ballot pool. Therefore, I assume the intent was a member in good
standing of an active 802 WG/TAG.
I also
think a broader pool is important as recommended
by Geoff, but current WG officers is rather vague because of the
inconsistent WG structure across 802. Is the 802.11 Publicity Chair
included? Are TF chairs included? Are TF vice chairs included?
This probably needs to be limited to the WG officers that must be and are
confirmed by the SEC.
The
use of the word "may" is a problem also. This implies that a list will be
maintained of who is in the appeals pool and who isn't. It is best to
define who is in and who is out without the
option of may.
Suggested Remedy: The appeals pools
consists of:
a. Current members in good standing of the SEC
who have attended both the opening and closing SEC meetings at two of the
last four plenary sessions.
b. Former members of the SEC who are members in
good standing of an active WG/TAG having qualified for member status
through attendance.
c. Current WG/TAG Vice Chairs confirmed by the
SEC who are members in good standing of an active WG/TAG having qualified
for member status through attendance.
3.7.2
Compliant
Comment: The use of "(Secretary)" is I fear an
opening to future ambiguity.
Suggested Remedy: Use "SEC Recording Secretary"
for all references.
3.7.4 Appeals panel
Comment: I think the last line should have been
edited differently from the source. The text on which this is based refers
the matter to the Standards Board for appointment of the panel. The SA
Operations Manual lets the same person making initial appointments to the panel
make arbitrary appointments when the parties to the appeal can't agree on the
panel. For us, I believe the escalation should be to the entire SEC when a
panel can't be chosen, not to the Computer Society. I bet the SAB
would throw it back if no sponsor hearing was conducted.
Suggested Remedy: To allow the SEC to arbitrarily
appoint a panel or to hear the case, I recommend replacing "Computer Society
Standards Activity with "the matter
shall be referred to the SEC for consideration."
3.7.5 Conduct of the
Hearing
Comment: Though the Robert's Rules paragraph is
identical to other IEEE rules, I find it a problem. We do not
mandate that our groups use any specific version of Roberts Rules [sic] (see
5.1.4). Either we need to tighten up 5.1.4 to be the current edition of
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (as Geoff suggested), or this needs to be
rewritten to recognize that a WG may have chosen another edition of Robert's
Rules for their operation. In either case, since most of our appeals
come WG/TAG and they have their own rules, we need to also recognize any WG/TAG
rules that override Robert's.
Suggested Remedy: Change the last paragraph of
3.7.5 to read: "The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules
of Order Newly Revised shall apply to questions of parliamentary procedure
for the hearing not covered herein, nor covered within the rules of the group
for the action under appeal."
Change the last sentence of 5.1.4 to read: "The
current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall be used in
combination with these operating rules to achieve this
balance."
3.7.7 Request for
Re-hearing
Comment: The last sentence has been
inappropriately edited, and could be improved over its original source. As
written if one complains about a re-hearing, then it is referred to the higher
body. The intent is only when the decision is to accept the decision of
the panel that it is referred to the higher body.
Suggested Remedy: Change the last sentence of the
paragraph to read: "If the decision of the SEC is to adopt the report of
the appeals panel, further appeals shall be referred to the Computer Society
SAB."
-----Original Message-----
From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com] Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 7:31 PM To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on Appeals Process Dear EC members,
Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on the appeals process. This ballot was approved at the Friday March 14, 2003 plenary session. It is identical to what was presented at the Plenary session except that I have accepted all the redlining (which was relative to a prior draft) so that the ballot now reads against the most currently released version of the P&P. The purpose and rationale for the ballot are as given in the attached ballot document.
Ballot Opens: April 6, 2003
Ballot Closes: May 7, 2003 11:59 PM EDT
WG chairs, if you haven't already done so, please invite your WG members to comment through you. Buzz, please ensure this gets sent to the "802ALL" email list as well. While I encourage discussion on the reflector, I am trying something new this time, and have included a ballot response / comment form. Prior to the close of the ballot, please fill out the attached form with your vote and a summary of your comments. Then send it to the reflector. I will accept updated forms until the close of the ballot. I’m also open to comments on how this process works. Hopefully this will make it easier for me to compile and distribute comments, and not make it any more difficult for everyone else participating in the ballot. If it doesn’t work, we will fall back to the old process the next round of ballots.
Thanks & Regards,
Mat
Matthew
Sherman
|