----- 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