Buzz,
So I thank you for
your gentle correction. Really, I should not be second guessing the
intent of the creators of this rule. Of course, I don't have to. I
can simply say I disagree with it whatever it was. In my mind recent
events have shown that the 1st meeting rule is simply too open to
abuse to continue to exist. There has to be a better way. I was
going to respond to your comments point by point, but I decided not to in
light of recent traffic I received.
Perhaps the
membership question is more complex than it sounds. Perhaps we also have
to ask what is a Working Group, and what is a Study Group? Ken's e-mail
caught me off guard because it had not occurred to me that a Working Group
pre-exists a PAR. Repeating from my response to Ken the SA Standards
Board OM reads:
5.2
Project authorization
No formal activity
shall take place after six months from the day of the first meeting of the
working group
without formal
submittal of a PAR to the IEEE-SA Standards Board and assignment of a project
number (see
5.1.2).
6.1.1
Project Authorization Request (PAR)
As part of the
initial PAR procedure, the committee or working group shall appoint a chair
(or official
reporter) who shall
sign a Copyright Agreement acknowledging that the proposed standard
constitutes a
"work made for hire"
as defined by the Copyright Act, and that as to any work not so defined, any
rights or
interest in the
copyright to the standards publication is transferred to the
IEEE.
In addition Joanne
Wilson of ArrayComm hit me with some side traffic that highlighted the fact
that Study Groups exist within Working Groups as well as at the EC
level. When a Study Group transitions to a Task Group, there is no
membership issue. Members of the SG were already WG members. Only
WG members who show up at the first TG meeting get's to vote in
elections. Anyone else who suddenly shows up must first develop
membership in the WG to participate. However the decision on where to
put a PAR developed by an SG is made by the EC. They could take that
same PAR and put it in a new WG. Suddenly, a whole different process is
followed, and everyone get's instant membership just for showing up at the
first meeting. Is forming a new Task Group really that different?
Why must new TG members first develop WG status while someone walking in for
potentially the same task in a new WG gets instant membership? This does
not seem right.
So I'm going to get a
bit heretical here. The concept of a Sponsor SG does not exist at the SA
level. It is an 802 construct that I feel is very useful. Most PAR's for
new work (aside from Maintenance and similar activities) are proceeded by a
study group. Most new Working Groups (hope I'm not wrong again) are
proceeded by a Study Group. It seems to me that the 802 SG fills the
role of the pre-PAR WG. The rules in the SG are different in than
in the WG and perhaps more appropriate for a group that suddenly appears out
of nothing. I'd rather see all new "WG" transition through a SG phase
rather than pop into existence. I'm sure there are aways exceptions, and
I suppose the EC should be able to waive WG into existence for those
exceptions. But I believe it is better for people to become aquainted
with each other and the work at hand before appointing a leader. Having
the EC appoint a chair and a little later having elections seems like a better
process for me. So I like this concept of a pre-PAR WG being an
SG. Perhaps I am way off base, but this is my view at the
moment.
So Buzz, how I would
respond to each of your points is as follows:
1)
Having an SG as a "Pre-Par" WG I think
is a better process. I would not think it is easy to make intelligent
decisions about your leaders and the proper approach to developing your work
without any guidance prior to the first WG meeting. So I think moving
slower at the first meeting is better than moving faster (if in fact the group
has limited experience with 802).
2)
Why is this so much different than the
transition of a SG to a TG? If it is people involved are going to change
so much, then a Task Group should permit anyone to become a member at their
first meeting too. I don't think this is what we want, and I don't
accept that the membership in the change over from an SG to a WG changes that
radically in general. If so, they should be stuck with the same rules as
for a SG transitioning to a TG.
3)
Agreed. But we still need to
guard against abuse as a community. I believe in flexibility. But
there is such a thing as too much flexability. We need a balance, and
right now I feel that balance is not to base initial membership on the first
meeting. I'm not sure why this would be considered more flexible than
some other rules.
4)
Again, the folks joining a new task
group also are developing a new context for a new task. And yet they can
live within the requirements of prior establishment of membership. I
don't see why new WG could not live with the same requirement given the
existence of a Pre-WG SG.
Talk to you
soon,
Mat
Matthew
Sherman
Vice Chair,
IEEE 802
Technology
Consultant
Communications
Technology Research
AT&T Labs
- Shannon Laboratory
Room B255,
Building 103
180 Park
Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park,
NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1
(973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973)
360-5877
EMAIL:
mjsherman@att.com
-----Original
Message-----
From:
Rigsbee, Everett
O
[mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 4:20
PM
To: Sherman,Matthew
J (Matthew); bob@airespace.com;
stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P
Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
Matt, Where I
sincerely appreciate your attempting to follow the intent of the framers of
the Bylaws, I think you may be making a assumptive error in believing that the
reason for the start-up rule was one of convenience or oversight, rather than
design. My recollection of the intent as discussed and agreed during the
drafting of the rule centered on the following primary points:
1.
In order to begin the work of the new Working Group, it is necessary to have
bona fide members who can elect officers and participate in votes on early
substantive matters to help set the course and future direction of activities.
Early consensus of the WG participants allows them to move forward
expeditiously, and begin to focus on the issues where the real work needs to
be done.
2.
The make-up and character of those officially committing (by their attendance
at the 1st official session) to participate in the work defined by
the PAR, as approved, can change dramatically from that of the Study Group
participants and that therefore basing membership requirements on prior Study
Group participation might very well cause an unfair bias to the early
membership and control of the committee that could lead to major problems and
power struggles further down the road. Indeed where there has been shown
to be a division of a large Group into two or more diametrically opposing
factions, the tendency has been to divide the group and let each faction
pursue its preferred direction, and let the market and ongoing support
determine the eventual winner. One has only to look back at 802's
history to see several cases where serious technology splits lead to several
standards, which ultimately failed to win enough market share to survive in
the long-term (e.g. 802.4, 802.5, 802.6, 802.9, 802.12, 802.14, and FDDI to
name a few).
3.
WGs in start-up mode have many problems to deal with and it is the make-up of
the actual participant group that will shape the tone and character of the
Group. Each 802 WG tends to have its own "culture" and style. What
works perfectly for one WG, may be anathema for another. So we have to
be willing to allow the actual participant set to establish its own culture
& traditions; no "One-Size-Fits-All" set of rules will do the job
here. Diversity is the rule, rather than the exception. Our rules
need to establish a common framework that is necessary and sufficient to
achieve meaningful results, but there must be plenty of latitude to permit the
diversity which has made 802 such a rich and productive environment.
4.
The intent of the 3-meeting rule is to ensure that those joining an
established WG have sufficient time and experience to learn the history,
culture and style of the WG before becoming an active participant.
However, in the case of a new WG, they will be establishing their
culture and style as they go along (under tutelage from other WGs), so there
is no need for the learning period. Later-comers, however, will need the
time to "catch up" on the history and style of the WG as set by the original
participants. The 3-meeting rule was also viewed as a serious deterrent
to factions attempting to bring in a horde of supporters to influence the
outcome of votes during a single session, since it would require a lot more
cost and pre-planning under the rule. So far it seems to be working well
in that respect. The fact that our rules allow sufficient latitude that
there are occasional disputes over interpretation is a necessary evil to
permitting the diversity we want and need. This is one of the primary
reasons we need an SEC: to help resolve such disputes on a fair and
equitable basis. We just need to be ready to step up when the time
arrives.
I
recollect no mention of any convenience or bookkeeping factors in selecting
the start-up rules. The players get to choose the game and adjust the
rules to fit their needs. If there is too great a division of large
opposing factions to permit forward progress, then it is better to divide into
independent groups that can each move forward independently. Splinter
factions tend to find a mainstream camp to join and work with.
Thanx, Buzz
Dr. Everett O.
(Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA
98124-2207
(425) 865-2443 Fx: (425)
865-6721
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
-----Original
Message-----
From:
mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 8:42
PM
To: bob@airespace.com;
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
Vice Chair,
IEEE 802
Technology
Consultant
Communications
Technology Research
AT&T Labs
- Shannon Laboratory
Room B255,
Building 103
180 Park
Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park,
NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1
(973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973)
360-5877
EMAIL:
mjsherman@att.com
-----Original
Message-----
From: Bob O'Hara
[mailto:bob@airespace.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 1:30
PM
To: Sherman,Matthew J
(Matthew); stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P
Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
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-----
From:
mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:31
PM
To:
stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P
Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
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
Vice Chair, IEEE
802
Technology
Consultant
Communications Technology
Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon
Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ
07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com