Re: [802SEC] P&P Revision Ballot - Clause 17 - Procedure for PAR s
Bob-
I strongly support your position.
Thanks for the support of the principle and clarification with better text.
I would propose to editorially refine the text just a little more for
clarity:
3. LMSC projects are balloted by individuals. An LMSC PAR specifying a
balloting method other than balloting by individuals may be submitted to
NesCom only when approved by the EC in a separate vote taken in session at
an 802 plenary to approve the exceptional balloting method.
Geoff
At 10:25 AM 6/17/2005 , Bob O'Hara wrote:
Disapprove.
While the language proposed is tighter, I do not think this is clearly
specifying that a single vote of the EC to approve the PAR is all that is
required, or if the requirement is a vote on the balloting method. I would
suggest the following language to address this (and to eliminate the
negative language from the current wording):
3. LMSC projects are balloted by individuals. An LMSC PAR specifying a
balloting method other than balloting by individuals may be submitted to
NesCom only when approved by the EC in a separate vote to approve the
balloting method taken in session at an 802 plenary.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org <mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org> ] On Behalf Of
Tony Jeffree
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 7:12 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] P&P Revision Ballot - Clause 17 - Procedure for PARs
This is a re-run of my rules change ballot; to refresh peoples' memories, I
initially ran a ballot to change clause 7.5 to reinforce our "individual
balloting" policy. This ballot comprehensively failed, and Bob Grow pointed
out that the clean and simple way to achieve my original intent was to add
a simple statement to the Procedure for PARs. Geoff Thompson proposed a
rather tighter wording, and it is Geoff's version that I have used in this
re-ballot. Geoff's wording makes it clear that any deviation from
individual balloting requires a vote of the EC taken at a Plenary. While
this may at first appear redundant, as forwarding a PAR is something that
we do at Plenaries, my reading of the rest of the procedure leads me to
believe that there are some categories of PAR (maintenance, amendment to an
existing PAR) where the procedure doesn't explicitly require the PAR to be
approved at a Plenary. Hence, short of digging up the drains on the whole
of the procedure, which I am loath to do, I believe that Geoff's words are
a useful clarification.
This ballot closes on 17th July 2005.
Regards,
Tony
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This
list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This
list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.