----- 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