Matt, I guess
we do disagree on this one, since as I see it, all the various TGs of a WG
must operate under the same set of WG rules and procedures, and all of their
actions must be ratified by the WG as a whole in order for them to be
effective. A new WG has many more degrees of freedom and less baggage to
accommodate as it chooses its course and direction. It is precisely
because the formation of a new WG is a relatively infrequent event that I am
willing to allow the one-time rule, which requires SEC oversight, to be in
effect. If we had that same requirement for every TG that forms, we'd
need to double our SEC meeting times to support that. A new WG/TAG is
the only place where you have the need for a nearly context free start-up, and
the only context is really what is written in the PAR that was approved.
That's their "ticket to ride" and all who will participate in the
activity should start on an equal footing without predisposition. That's
the way I see it, anyway. J
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: Friday, April 11, 2003
8:59 PM
To:
Rigsbee, Everett
O; bob@airespace.com;
stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P
Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
Buzz,
Clearly
there is a balance between too much supervision and too little. The
proper place for that balance may shift with the times. I think that the
culture of a TG is a culture unto itself, as much as the culture unto a WG is
a culture unto itself. So I reiterate that if you are going to waive
everyone in at the initiation of a WG, then you should do so at the initiation
of a task group as well. It is far more common that we start a TG than a
WG, and the process where new members of the TG must develop their membership
either during the study group phase, or afterwards using the 3 plenary rule
seems to work fine.
In my
mind the study group plays the part of the pre-par WG. If a WG did
initiate without a PAR the only work they could do would be to hold an SG
under SG rules to develop a PAR. If we are to continue with this first
meeting rule, I'd rather do away with study groups, initiate the WG when we
first decide we want to develop a PAR, let the WG elect it's officers
immediately, and then do the PAR. If people then want to have voting
rights when the first TG for the WG begins it's work, then they will have to
participate in the PAR development anyway. Bottom line is I think if
technical people really care about an activity they should show up for the PAR
development. I view a SG as a pre-PAR WG (which is perhaps more
consistent with SA rules), and therefore think that attendance at the SG
should count toward attendance for the WG, since it my mind it is doing the
work of the WG anyway. If the WG already existed (but had not PAR yet)
it would have to form the study group and develop voting rights
(for new people) via the SG anyway. So I don't understand why we should
treat the case of a new WG differently than that.
Bottom
line is we may just have to agree to disagree. I'm open for more
discussion, but so far I have not been persuaded.
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: Friday, April 11, 2003 6:04
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, I
appreciate the concerns you have expressed. I too am concerned by what
could be interpreted as the Hi-Jacking of an approved WG by a large group of
"outsiders" who had not participated in the earlier Study Group
activities. I have heard opinions expressed that these outsiders are
only there to impede or prevent the creation of a standard by this working
group, an activity which clearly should not be allowed to happen.
Perhaps because I tend to be an optimist and take the somewhat Pollyanna view
of most situations, I believe that there are better ways to deal with this
type of a problem than to try to craft a more restrictive set of rules, which
could act to inhibit the openness of the 802 process. I can envision an
alternate scenario which could be equally destructive, whereby a group of
enthusiastic supporters for a specific approach overloads the attendance at
the Study Group phase, and thereby dominates the initial meeting, the election
of officers, and sets the group off on a very narrow path that excludes other
viable proposals from consideration. Corporate competition is always
such that it will try to rear its ugly head in an otherwise free and open
process.
But
that's one of the major reasons why we (the SEC) are here: to oversee that the
process is open and well-protected from corporate/organizational abuse.
I think we have already demonstrated by our actions that we have some
concern that there may have been some unsavory activity in what transpired at
the March plenary, and that we need to implement some tighter controls in July
to ensure that we can truly see what forces if any are at work. So while
I share your concerns, I would prefer that we seek other remedies to the
potential problems than to restrict the openness of our process. The SEC
is perfectly capable of exerting its influence to ensure that abuses are not
to be tolerated.
As to
your seeing a lack of distinction between the SG to TG transition within a WG,
compared with the ECSG to WG transition, I will merely point out that the
difference is exactly based on the fact that one is done within the
pre-established context of an existing WG, which already has developed a
"culture", officers, rules, and history of precedents that will guide their
TGs, and must be conformed with to be a viable TG. Thus a "learning
process" should be a mandatory part of gaining membership for the pre-existing
WG. By contrast, when forming a new WG, there is no culture, officers,
rules, or history to deal with. They will all be developed as the
participants build their own culture (probably patterned after some other WGs)
but the group is free to choose the patterns which work best for them.
To give the preferential treatment of instant membership only to prior Study
Group participants, may in fact prevent/delay the actual WG participants from
be free to determine their own culture, and allow a minority to dominate the
early critical period of the WG history. A brand new WG is a very
different context than the a new TG in an existing WG, and we should not try
to force them to be the same.
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: Thursday, April 10, 2003 10:04
PM
To: Rigsbee, Everett O;
bob@airespace.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P
Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
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