RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership - Ballot Closed
Buzz,
So once again, I feel I must respectfully disagree with your view point.
The rules have to be able to evolve. Yes, 802.20 has tested the rules
in a way that they never have before, and I believe was not foreseen.
802.20 has alerted us to new information, and frankly made us aware of
short comings in our existing rules. But 802.20 is not being singled
out! Nothing here is retroactive. The change would be applied equally
to all groups, and if necessary we can grandfather folks (though I don't
think this is necessary). And we are following the normal process in
our rules for amending the rules.
Based on current events and circumspection, I believe the existing rules
are broken. I find them in contradiction with themselves, and something
has to change. The situation in 802.20 has highlighted issues in the
rules for me. I don't accept that I normally need to participate in 3
meetings to gain rights, but if I walk in the first day of a new working
group, I get the same rights without participation. I see a study group
as a trial working group. It sets up the context of the new working
group (or task group), and operates under a different set of rules (any
one who attends can vote but there is a restricted agenda). The rules of
a study group allow people to become familiar with 802 and our
procedures, but call for closer supervision and direction. Once the WG
formally forms you transition to normal WG rules. To me this seems like
a solid approach to development of new working groups. I also view a
task group as creating a context in the same was as a working group
does. I don't like the asymmetry in initial task group membership and
initial working group membership. I view using the study group to
develop pre-working group membership as a way to address this as well.
Also, there seems to be an assumption in your response that I am somehow
interpreting the intent of the originators of the current rules. For
the membership interpretation ballot run a while ago, that was true, and
the intent of the originators of these rules was relevant. But now we
are running a P&P revision ballot. While I am still interested in
understanding the intent of the originators of these rules, we are no
longer bound by that intent. We can now change the intent of the rules
based on current understanding and circumstance.
One more point of confusion for me that is an aside to your arguments.
Most of the organizations above us talk of membership in a sponsor group
rather than working group. In our P&P, I think there is an implicit
assumption that WG members are 802 members. I'm not sure this is
explicitly called out somewhere. The reason why I care is that
organizations like the CS SAB have membership accounting requirements
that apply to members of 802 rather than WG specifically. This makes me
think we may want to consider an explicit statement somewhere about how
membership in 802 is obtained and maintained (assumedly by membership in
at least one WG).
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 11:23 PM
To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); tak@cisco.com
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG
Membership - Ballot Closed
Matt, I still think you are treading in very dangerous waters by
attempting CHANGE the way the rules for initial group membership are to
be interpreted from what has historically been done in the past. I
think doing so will essentially "pour gasoline on the fire" of opinion,
which claims that 802.20 is being unfairly singled-out for special
voting/membership restrictions in a post-facto manner to serve some
political agenda. If we need to change our rules with regard to gaining
& retaining WG/TAG membership, let's do it with plenty of up front
disclosure and opportunity for discussion, but we can't go back and
disenfranchise legitimate 802.20 members by changing the way the rules
are to be interpreted. That smacks of Gerrymandering and should be
avoided at all costs.
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: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:16 PM
To: tak@cisco.com
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG
Membership - Ballot Closed
Mike,
This is a difficult ballot, not just because it is controversial, but
because there is the potential to try to address many problems with the
same rules change. The basic thrust of my proposed change was to allow
initial membership to be based on SG membership. Based on comments
received, the only three people who fundamentally objected to this were:
Roger, Bob O'Hara, and Buzz. I think some of the issues (particularly
in Roger's comments) are probably semantics. I will respond to Roger's
comments shortly in this regard. However for these three voters, I
think their comments may be irresolvable.
Then there are a whole bunch of what I would call editorials, and the
potential to address additional issues such as membership roll off. I
think the editorial issues are resolvable. The additional issues such
as membership roll off may or may not be resolvable, but they should be
separable. We have tried to address membership roll off before and
failed I believe. I see nothing wrong with trying again. But, I would
not like the resolution of the initial membership problem be contingent
on the roll off or other problem.
So, what I plan to do is categorize the comments. I will try to fully
resolve all of them. Some are in conflict with the basic premise of
basing initial membership on SG membership, but do not provide an
alternative (other than to leave things alone). I don't consider these
resolvable. The editorials will be another category which should be
doable. And then I will break out additional categories as needed which
are side issues such as membership roll off. If these cannot be
resolved, I will ask the voters involved to consider deferring the issue
to a future ballot, and support what can be agreed.
Hopefully this will allow some revision on initial WG membership to be
passed.
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: Mike Takefman [mailto:tak@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:44 PM
To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG
Membership - Ballot Closed
Matt,
based on the comments, is it likely the ballot will
pass on revision?
mike
--
Michael Takefman tak@cisco.com
Manager of Engineering, Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991