| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Mat,
I
think my reasoning is pretty clear, the character of the organization changes
distinctly between being a study group (administration and marketing) and being
a working group (technical work and production of a standard). I believe
this is the reason for the immediacy of membership at the first working group
meeting, that the first working group meeting is where the first surge of
technical experts will show up. I do not want to delay the work of
receiving, reviewing, debating, and selecting technical proposals until the
third meeting, if that work can be done more expeditiously. I don't
believe that the rule is as it is because it was the easiest path. But,
there are some present that were also present when he rule was drafted. I
am sure they will offer their recollection.
Unduly
delaying the membership of the technical experts that arrive at the first
working group meeting gives those people/organizations willing and able to risk
the time and money to attend the study group meetings disproportionate
representation in the early stages of the working group. Because there is
no guarantee that a working group will be formed for every study group in
operation, many companies wait to send people until the working group is a
certainty.
Do we
want our membership rules to reward the gamblers with the officer positions and
control of all working group decisions for the first two meetings, including,
potentially, adoption of operating rules, selection of task group organization,
election of task group chairs, selection of document editors, and possibly even
selection of the initial technical proposal? That is even more of an abuse
of the (proposed) rule than has been observed with the current
rule.
Don't
make the cure worse than the disease.
To
answer your question about the 3 session rule, it is in place after the
technical work has begun to ensure that the participant is familiar with the
work that has been done thus far, and to prevent stuffing the ballot box when
individual contentious issues arise.
-Bob -----Original Message-----
From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 8:42 PM To: Bob O'Hara; stds-802-sec@ieee.org Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership Bob,
I think you at least partially misunderstand my intent in the changes I proposed. Your arguments seem to focus strongly on the officers of the group, and not the general membership. So let me ask you this. Why do we have the “3 session rule” that normally applies to achieving membership? If one meeting is enough for anyone to follow what is going on technically, and understand the procedures in place, why don’t we just let every expert act as a member the moment they walk in the door?
A WG is not a virtual particle popping in and out of a vacuum. On day one, it has a context that it evolved in and is continuing to evolve in. That context is the Study Group it evolved from, and 802 itself. To properly participate even in an election, I believe participants need to have a solid sense of what they are there to do, and how it is normally done. Not to mention some level of familiarity with the candidates. I don’t think one meeting or even one session is enough. And I don’t think the creators of the 3 session rule did either. While the EC may be able to mentor the leadership of a new WG, I don’t think they can effectively mentor the membership itself if it is completely green along with the leadership.
I firmly believe that the creators of the “first meeting” rule chose to let everyone in because it was convenient and easy to do the book keeping. I am sure they saw the potential flaws, but presumed those potentials were generally remote and could be neglected. They probably did not believe these remote possibilities justified the inclusion of a more complex initial membership process. I think we now see that those potentials are larger than may have originally been anticipated. I for one now see a need for a more complex start up process which better preserves the intent of the 3 session rule for gaining membership. So again I ask, in your mind why have the 3 session rule if 3 sessions are not required to participate intelligently in a group?
Mat
Matthew
Sherman
-----Original
Message-----
Mat,
I vote DISAPPROVE on this ballot.
I believe that including any criterion related to experience with LMSC, its working groups, or study groups as a prerequisite to holding office is a path to constant judgment calls by the SEC as to how much experience is enough, what experience is relevant, and how recent that experience must be. So, must an officer candidate hold a working group office prior to running a study group, in order to be qualified? Which positions? How long? If we are going to require an experience criterion to be met, I want it to be explicit, concrete, and measurable. It must NOT be subject to interpretation. Given that the current proposed change lacks this specificity: In 5.1.3.1 delete: "In no case should a person who is not a member in good standing of IEEE 802 by the end of the first session of establishment of a WG be considered to Chair a WG, as they are unlikely to have sufficient familiarity with the Policies and Procedures of IEEE 802, as well as the IEEE 802 Standards Association (IEEE-SA), and IEEE Computer Society." and replace it with: "Candidates for the positions of working group chair and vice chair(s) shall be members of the working group." I believe that the SEC has the obligation to mentor the officers that are chosen by the working groups. It is the membership of the working group that is best situated to evaluate the qualifications of its leadership. The SEC, at best, is second guessing the working group decisions. I also don't agree with the substitution of study group participation for credit toward working group membership. This is a hack to try to give preference to study group participants, on the theory that they have more "experience" with 802 by having attended a study group meeting or two and, thus, would make better officers. Or, possibly, this is a misguided attempt to prevent "loading" the membership at the first meeting and electing a slate that is "distasteful" to some constituency. This is unsubstantiated. The nature of the work of a study group and a working group is fundamentally different. The task of a study group is basically administrative and marketing, to get a PAR and 5 criteria document approved. The task of a working group (at least initially) is mostly technical, evaluating technical proposals and writing a standard. The types and numbers of people that would attend the study group and working group meetings can be expected to be quite different. Why should the working group members have their choices of officer candidates limited to those that chose to perform the administrative and marketing tasks of a study group, when the character of the work changes dramatically at the formation of the working group? In 5.1.3.1 reverse the deletion of the first sentence of this clause (i.e., put it back). This is clear and concise. The deletion is completely ineffective, since all one has to do at the first meeting is present a letter of intention to participate to the chair, in order to gain instant membership according to the sentence that is proposed to start 5.1.3.1. Also delete the first two sentences in the second paragraph. -Bob -----Original
Message----- Dear EC members,
Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on WG Membership. 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 per the minutes of that meeting I have change the Section number 1.1.1.1 to 5.1.3.1. The purpose and rationale for the ballot are as given in the attached document.
Ballot Opens: March 27, 2003
Ballot Closes: April 28, 2003 11:59 PM
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 much more difficult for everyone else. If it doesn’t work, we will fall back to the old process the next round of ballots.
Thanks & Regards,
Mat
Matthew
Sherman
|