|
Mat/Tony-
My recollection of what happened in the formation
of .10 in the Wild Wild West days was that a group of security
engineers who were members of the Technical Committee on Security and
Privacy (not sure if I've got the name exactly right) determined that there was
a significant need for security in 802 LANs. A few of those engineers put
together a tutorial, which was presented at an 802 plenary meeting
(sometime in the 1987-88 timeframe). Based on that tutorial and some
discussion with members of the Exec, who agreed that secuirty should be provided
for 802 LANs, a PAR was developed by the founders of .10 and submitted to the
Exec for approval at the next plenary. The rest is history. All
attendees at the first meeting of .10 immediately got voting rights (I
unfortunately did not attend that first meeting, so I had to earn mine through
the usual process). The original .10 Chair (Kimberly Kirkpatrick) was
granted Exec voting rights at the next plenary -- she had no previous 802
experience, but was mentored by the other Chairs. When I took over from
Kim in 1992 after she became seriously ill, I also had no experience in running
an 802 Working Group (or even a study group for that matter), but I too was
mentored by the other Chairs. As I recall, there were also some tutorials
offered by the IEEE Staff on "How to be a Good Chair" - my own made up title for
this. These were very helpful in learing the processes.
Obviously, things change over time (sometimes for
the better), but I hope we don't ignore the successes of the past. I
firmly believe that there should be a well worded process for forming new
Working Groups in any revision of the P&P, which is flexible enough to
accommodate formation of a Working Group directly from an outside body of
expertise that doesn't have to become a Study Group, which is spun off from
another 802 Working Group first.
Also, at some point (hopefully soon) the issue of
un-hibernating a Working Group needs to be addressed, because I will be
presenting a PAR to the Exec before the next plenary for revisions to IEEE
Std 802.10-1998.
Ken
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 5:10
AM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P
Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
Mat/Ken -
If my memory serves me correctly, the concept
of Study Groups post-dates the formation of 802.10. At the time .10 was
formed, the formation of new WGs was simply a result of the SEC waving its
collective magic wand. As such, the 802.10 case doesn't shed any light
whatsoever on current P&P or operating practice.
I believe the
intent of the current 802 rules, particularly 5.3, is that a future new WG
would not come into being without a Study Group first developing a PAR for its
work and the SEC making a decision as to where that PAR would be placed. The
wording in the rules could benefit from making that a more explicit
requirement, but the intent is nonetheless clear. So we're not talking
unwritten rules here; badly written rules, perhaps, but written
nonetheless.
My personal view is that the same principle must apply to
hibernating WGs - i.e., that they cannot be magically un-hibernated by a
waving of the SEC magic wand without the pre-cursor of establishing a Study
Group to define a PAR for the work that they might do.
Regards,
Tony
At 23:19 10/04/2003 -0400,
mjsherman@research.att.com wrote:
Ken,
So I guess
the first question is where do Working Groups come from? My own
opinion is that our rules are somewhat lacking in terms of a process by
which WG s are formed. For that matter, they are equally lacking in
terms of the process followed to restart a WG. Off hand it appears
that they simply pop into existence by a vote of the EC. But for sure
Working Groups should only exist if they have at least one assigned task to
do. Normally we say a WG without an active PAR goes into
Hibernation. However if we look at SA Standards Board Operations
Manual we find:
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.
So clearly
their intent is that the WG comes before the PAR. This presents a bit
of a chicken and egg problem. In my recollection within 802, the only
way a PAR comes into existence these days is by first having a Study Group
study the matter. If that SG develops a draft PAR, and the EC
determines a new WG is needed to pursue that PAR, POP the WG comes into
existence. In my mind the SG plays the role of the pre-PAR WG. I
don t believe the SA is cognizant of SG s or gives them any status.
These seem to be an 802 unique thing (though I could be wrong).
However, I would not normally expect a WG to come into existence without
first a debate as to where the work belongs, and an EC SG to at least
determine if the work is appropriate for 802. Apparently none of these
steps occurred for 802.10, which surprises me. I guess there could be
such strong consensus when the issue was first raised to the EC that there
was no need for an EC level SG, and the WG could simply pop into
existence. My own preference would be that a WG not come into
existence until at least one PAR has been well defined for it to work
on. However, if a WG were to pop into existence without a PAR, I would
hope that except for electing officers, they would initially operate in SG
mode to develop a PAR, since they can t exist for long without one.
And I would hope that all the members of the WG were members of the SG, or
else why would they be there? Can their be a Task Group without a
PAR? Near as I can tell our rules don t really deal with Task Groups
either. So frankly, I am confused.
Could you
provide more details on the formation of 802.10? How did you get to
your first PAR?
Thanks,
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: Ken Alonge [mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]
Sent:
Thursday, April 10, 2003 2:10 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
Hi All-
I'd like to throw my 2 cents in here and stir the pot a little
more. In Mat's second paragraph below, he alludes to a Working Group
evolving from a Study Group (which happens to be the method by which WGs
have come into existence in the recent past) and that a WG doesn't pop into
existence. In fact, 802.10 did not evolve from a SG -- it "popped"
into existence from work that began outside 802. At the very first
meeting of .10 everyone that attended was granted voting rights, and the
Chair (who had not previously participated in 802) had Exec voting rights at
the next Plenary. Is it the expectation that this will NEVER
happen again in 802?
Unless there is an "unwritten rule" that everyone on the current Exec
knows (except me, since I haven't been around in a while) that ALL
new WGs will ONLY come from SGs that have been spun off from existing
WGs (and therefore people have been building up credits toward voting rights
in the manner specified in the P&P), then I think the Exec needs to keep
the current practice of awarding membership to all who attend the first
meeting of a new WG. (Sorry for the run-on paragraph.) If this is
really the case, then I think there may be some shortsightedness on the part
of the Exec, as to where new 802 projects might come
from.
Ken
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: mjsherman@research.att.com
- To: bob@airespace.com ; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
- Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 11:42 PM
- 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
- 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-----
- 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
Regards,
Tony
|