Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[802SEC] Reaffirmation of 802.10





The IEEE-SA rules don't require you to reactive a working group
in order to run a reaffirmation.  Reaffirmation ballots are a
function of the sponsoring committee (the LMSC) rather than the
working group that wrote the standard.  I can't find anything
specific to the subject of reaffirmation ballots in the LMSC
P&P, so the SA rules prevail.

You can safely form a reaffirmation ballot pool and conduct a
reaffirmation of 802.10 without thawing out the 802.10 WG. If
the results of the reaffirmation indicate that a revision project
should be undertaken, you can present that information to the SEC
as a possible justification for reanimating the working group.

As to the urgency question, I would not dawdle.  RevCom has
gotten very aggressive in conducting the "5 year review" of
standards.  RevCom expects the sponsor to provide a crisp answer
as to whether a standard should be reaffirmed or withdrawn at
the 5 year point.  Given the recent *debacle* with the reaffirmation
of 802.11, I suggest that you get up to speed on the reaffirmation
ballot process, and strive to conduct a nice, clean reaffirmation
of 802.10, unless you want it to be withdrawn.

Howard

Ken Alonge wrote:

> Tony-
> 
>  
> 
> Unfortunately, since the .10 Standards are up for re-affirmation this 
> year, we can't wait until the LinkSec SG completes its work.  From my 
> participation in the SG meetings at the March plenary and in the weekly 
> conference calls, as far as I can tell, the LinkSec SG is at least 6 
> months (if not longer) away from deciding on a direction to pursue with 
> regard to a security solution.  I can almost guarantee from the 
> discussions that I've participated in that at least the Secure Data 
> Exchange (SDE) protocol portion of the .10 Standards will satisfy most 
> (if not all) the security needs of 802 that have been espoused thus 
> far.  Therefore, if we wait until the LinkSec SG completes its analyses 
> to move to revise SDE, the .10 Standards will have automatically been 
> withdrawn.  If the revision motion is approved at the July plenary, the 
> updates to SDE will be complete by the time the SG finishes its 
> anlalyses, which I'm certain will show that the modified SDE is the 
> right choice for 802 security.
> 
>  
> 
> Ken
> 
>     ----- Original Message -----
> 
>     From: Tony Jeffree <mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk>
> 
>     To: Ken Alonge <mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net>
> 
>     Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org <mailto:stds-802-sec@ieee.org> ;
>     housley@vigilsec.com <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>
> 
>     Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 5:23 AM
> 
>     Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG
>     Membership
> 
> 
>     Ken -
> 
>     I don't believe that you are considered to be a SG until such a time
>     as you are defined to be one. Right now, you are a hibernating WG.
> 
>     Since a large part of the rationale for revising 802.10 that you
>     presented in March was your view that a revised 802.10 would serve
>     the needs of the Link Sec study group, I believe the appropriate
>     course of action would be for any such PAR to be developed within
>     the Link Sec SG. Right now, the SG has yet to determine whether or
>     not 802.10 will play a part in whatever mechanisms they decide to use.
> 
>     Regards,
>     Tony
> 
>     At 19:23 12/04/2003 -0400, Ken Alonge wrote:
> 
>>     Mat-
>>      
>>     I guess .10 is the exception again, since the hibernating members
>>     of .10 are developing a PAR and 5 criteria for the revision to
>>     IEEE Std 802.10-1998.  Since we are doing this work, are we
>>     considered a Study Group?  Under the current definition of an SG,
>>     I don't believe so.  But who is better qualified to develop the
>>     PAR and 5 Criteria for revision of a Standard than the hibernating
>>     working group members?  I would like to hear from some of the
>>     other Exec members on this, since I plan to submit the PAR for
>>     approval by the Exec at the July plenary.
>>      
>>     Thanks - Ken
>>
>>         ----- Original Message ----- From: mjsherman@research.att.com
>>         <mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com> To:
>>         kenneth.alonge@verizon.net <mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net>
>>         ; stds-802-sec@ieee.org <mailto:stds-802-sec@ieee.org> Cc:
>>         housley@vigilsec.com <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com> Sent:
>>         Friday, April 11, 2003 5:10 PM Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC
>>         P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
>>
>>         Ken,
>>
>>           It was 20 cents well spent.  But to be clear, a new WG can
>>         evolve from ANY study group - and EC SG or a WG SG.  The point
>>         is that some sort of work (a PAR) should be developed for the
>>         new WG before it pops into existence.  PAR's (again I could be
>>         wrong) are developed normally in Study Groups.  I don't know
>>         of any exceptions to this these days.  So I believe a Study
>>         Group should always precede a PAR, and thus a new WG.  The
>>         same statements would hold for a hibernating WG being brought
>>         out of Hibernation.
>>
>>           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: Friday, April 11,
>>         2003 4:01 PM To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew);
>>         stds-802-sec@ieee.org Cc: housley@vigilsec.com Subject: Re:
>>         [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
>>
>>           Mat-
>>
>>           The main difference that I see is that .10 was not formed
>>         from an EC study group and, therefore, the members wouldn't
>>         have built up voting rights credits. So, in order to handle a
>>         similar situation in the future (if one ever expects a similar
>>         situation to ever occur again) voting rights would have to be
>>         granted to all who attend the first meeting of the WG, so they
>>         could elect officers and begin voting on issues related to
>>         their work.  This is the model that could/should be used for
>>         un-hibernating a working group, as well. If the "unwritten"
>>         model within 802 forevermore is that all new WGs will ONLY
>>         come from ECSGs, then the rules changes being proposed will
>>         work, but I believe that this is a very shortsighted position.
>>
>>           Looks like we're back to my original e-mail on the topic,
>>         and my two cents wound up to be 20 cents.  Sorry to belabor
>>         the point.
>>
>>           Ken ----- Original Message ----- From:
>>         mjsherman@research.att.com <mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com>
>>         To: kenneth.alonge@verizon.net
>>         <mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net> ; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>>         <mailto:stds-802-sec@ieee.org> Cc: housley@vigilsec.com
>>         <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003
>>         4:42 PM Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++
>>         Ballot on WG Membership
>>
>>           Ken,
>>
>>           I very much appreciate the history.  It sounds to me that
>>         your group had a relatively typical evolution.  I don't think
>>         what happened is incompatible with the rules we are suggesting
>>         for today.
>>
>>           Best 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
>>         <mailto:mjsherman@att.com> -----Original Message----- From:
>>         Ken Alonge [mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net] Sent: Friday,
>>         April 11, 2003 1:35 PM To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org;
>>         Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew) Cc: Russ Housley Subject: Re:
>>         [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
>>
>>           Mat-
>>
>>           I dug out the old minutes from the very first meetings of
>>         .10.  Kim was the drafter of the PAR, which was reviewed and
>>         approved by attendees of the pre-802.10 WG meetings.  The PAR
>>         was approved by the Exec during the July 1988 plenary meeting,
>>         which was the 4th meeting of the group that ultimately became
>>         802.10.  The minutes from the 6th meeting, which is the 3rd
>>         meeting as 802.10, indicate that all attendees at meetings 4 &
>>         5 had immediate voting rights.  They numbered about 25.  The
>>         attendees list from the subsequent 4 meetings (meetings 6-10)
>>         indicate that most (90%) of the original members who were
>>         granted voting rights continued to attend and made
>>         contributions to the development of the Standard.  In
>>         actuality, the voting membership grew to about 30 over the
>>         next few meetings.  Kim was there from day 1 of the group,
>>         even before it became 802.10.
>>
>>           By the way, .10 was formed from the membership of and was
>>         sponsored by not only the TC on Security and Privacy (as I
>>         stated previously), but also the TC on Computer
>>         Communications.  There was quite a diverse membership from the
>>         standpoint of industry, government, and academia
>>         representatives, as well as their expertise in networking and
>>         security.
>>
>>           Ken ----- Original Message ----- From:
>>         mjsherman@research.att.com <mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com>
>>         To: kenneth.alonge@verizon.net
>>         <mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net> ; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>>         <mailto:stds-802-sec@ieee.org> ; tony@jeffree.co.uk
>>         <mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 10:34
>>         AM Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++
>>         Ballot on WG Membership
>>
>>           Ken,
>>
>>           What you describe sounds very much like an informal version
>>         of what I would normally expect to do today.  If I understand
>>         you correctly (correct me if I don't) the sequence was:
>>
>>           Informal discussion outside and within 802 Plenary 1:
>>         Present proposal need for new work item to EC and tutorial to
>>         membership Plenary 2: Present PAR to EC.  Approve PAR. Approve
>>         WG with acting chair Plenary 3: First WG meeting.  Have
>>         elections.
>>
>>           Today I think the sequence would have run:
>>
>>           Plenary 1: Present proposal for new work, tutorial to
>>         membership, form SG to write PAR Plenary 2: Present and
>>         approve PAR.  Approve WG with acting chair Plenary 3: First WG
>>         meeting.  Have elections.
>>
>>           So I don't think things are so different.  To me the more
>>         important questions are:
>>
>>           Did the original leadership of 802.10 (Kimberly for
>>         instance) participate in the PAR development?   Was the first
>>         WG meeting Kimberly's first meeting?
>>
>>           How many showed up for that first meeting?  Of those that
>>         showed up, how many became regular members vs just showing up
>>         to say they have voting rights?  How many of those at the
>>         first meeting participated in the PAR development?  Were the
>>         one that stayed on in the group the ones that helped develop
>>         the PAR, or the ones who showed up for the first time at the
>>         first meeting?
>>
>>           I think these are the questions that are most relevant.  I
>>         think that today it is a given that we would not start a new
>>         WG without first having a draft PAR in mind for them to work
>>         on.  Personally, I would prefer a slightly extended SG process
>>         to give people more time to acclimate.  I would have preferred
>>         a process more like:
>>
>>           Plenary 1:  Present proposal for new work to EC, form SG
>>         Plenary 2:  Present draft PAR and Tutorial to 802 membership
>>         Plenary 3:  Approve PAR, approve new WG Plenary 4:  First WG
>>         meeting.  Have elections.
>>
>>           But I recognize this might be impeding progress more that
>>         people would like, so I doubt I would ever mandate a 3 Plenary
>>         approval process.  Just my thoughts.
>>
>>           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: Friday, April 11,
>>         2003 8:24 AM To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org; Tony Jeffree Subject:
>>         Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG
>>         Membership
>>
>>           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 ----- From: Tony Jeffree
>>         <mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk> To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>>         <mailto:stds-802-sec@ieee.org> 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
>>         <mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com> To: bob@airespace.com
>>         <mailto:bob@airespace.com> ; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>>         <mailto: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
>>
>     Regards,
>     Tony
>