Re: [802SEC] Comment resolution on LMSC P&P ballot titled 'LMSCOrganization'
I personally have always supported this approach. The only question in
my mind was whether participation in the Study Group leading up to the
group should count toward attendance. Today, if you participate in an
EC Study Group, you gain no credit anywhere toward gaining membership.
The other point is if a study group forms in an existing WG, and moves
into it's own WG, I think participation in that SG should count towards
membership as well.
I believe the formal rules from the SA is that a 'WG' has 6 months from
when it comes into existence to develop a PAR. I believe our 'Study
Group' concept is really just a WG prior to PAR with activities
restricted a bit to account for the fact that there are a lot of new
people.
Actually I don't like the differentiation between a WGSG and ECSG
because the EC can rip a PAR out of a WG and place it anywhere it likes
(even a different existing WG). Suddenly people who may have had full
membership in an activity have to go back to ground zero, and may have
to build rights in an existing WG from scratch. I feel all SG should
maintain separate (or separable) attendance accounting and participation
in the SG should count towards IEEE802 membership regardless of where it
occurs.
I don't dare try and force the changes in this direction because last
time I tried the revision failed. I'd rather get what I have through
first.
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK]
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 3:24 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Comment resolution on LMSC P&P ballot titled
'LMSCOrganization'
At least one suggestion that came up during a previous telecon on this
subject was that the initial membership of a new WG should be
established
in exactly the same way as membership in an established WG - i.e., that
you
would gain voting membership at the 3rd Plenary attended (2nd if there
was
an interim in between). The Chair would be an EC appointed position
until
such a time as the WG had voting members and could therefore hold
elections.
I think this idea has merit.
Regards,
Tony
At 00:47 22/10/2005, Grow, Bob wrote:
>I had interim meeting responsibilities that prevented me joining the
>call. While I agree that when the WG is formed is ambiguous, making it
>explicitly clear that the formation is immediate creates a chicken and
>egg problem. A few corner cases to consider (this this either
>complicates or does nothing to address).
>
>7.2.3.1 the initial meeting and membership has been a thorny one with
>mulitple problems. I believe thout it attempts to create the WG at the
>first meeting, not immediately. With the change you have a WG on PAR
>approval, but no one is a member of the WG.
>
>There is no stipulation that the initial meeting must be at a plenary
>meeting. Therefore, for example, if a group wanted to meet in May
after
>March PAR approval, would that interim meeting be the one where
>membership is established. Yet, if that is a WG meeting, it can't have
>elections since 7.2.2 only allows Chairs to be elected at a plenary
>meeting.
>
>If we are going to fix it, I don't think this is the best way. My
>preferences:
>
>1. The LMSC Chair can appoint an initial Chair who has responsibility
>to direct the organization of the WG.
>2. The initial session of a WG should be at a plenary.
>3. The agenda of the initial session whould include election of a
Chair
>and Vice Chair. I favor those elections being at the end of the
session
>after 75% session participation could be measured.
>4. Obviously with the above, I would change "participate in the first
>meeting" to "All persons satisfying 75% participation for the first
>session become members of the Working Group." Mandating the election
>for the final meeting of the session allows WG membership to be
>established and reduces "packing the room" problems for the initial
>election.
>5. Consistent with subsequent elections, the newly elected Chair does
>not take office until confirmed by the EC.
>6. The bottom line then is that the WG doesn't exist until its
>organizational meeting.
>
>--Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pat Thaler [mailto:pat_thaler@AGILENT.COM]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:35 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Comment resolution on LMSC P&P ballot titled
>'LMSCOrganization'
>
>I have no objection. Roger's text addresses the concerns about the
>language that were raised during the meeting, i.e. it replaces the
>somewhat ambiguous "where appropriate" with a definition of when it
>happens. Pat
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
>[mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM]
>Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 4:37 AM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Comment resolution on LMSC P&P ballot titled
>'LMSCOrganization'
>
>Folks,
>
>Are there any objections to Roger's comments? I have none, and will
>implement them in an updated resolution next week if I have heard no
>objection.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mat
>
>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>Senior Member Technical Staff
>BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 1:48 AM
>To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
>Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Comment resolution on LMSC P&P ballot titled
>'LMSCOrganization'
>
>Mat,
>
>I'm finding the color-coding tough to decipher.
>So, please tell me if this version would
>introduce this line:
>
>"When appropriate, a new working group is formed
>following approval of a PAR by the IEEE-SA
>Standards Board."
>
>I think that this language would waste an
>opportunity to clarify the text. The P&P has
>always been ambiguous on this issue, and I think
>this language still is. Does it mean that a new
>WG is effective immediately upon the PAR
>approval? Or does it mean that the EC can form a
>new WG after the PAR is approved?
>
>I think it should mean the former. The name of
>the WG is an element of the PAR. If the SASB
>approves a PAR that was forwarded by 802 and that
>includes the name of a WG that had not previously
>existed, then I think the WG should come into
>existence immediately. There is no point to defer
>the decision, because the EC already made the
>decision when it forwarded the PAR.
>
>So, I would suggest this language: "If the
>IEEE-SA Standards Board approves a PAR, forwarded
>by the LMSC, that assigns the work to a new LMSC
>Working Group, that Working Group shall
>immediately come into existence."
>
>Another comment: "A study group may meet for up
>to two plenary cycles, at which point a PAR is
>expected to be submitted to the EC for
>consideration." should be moved to the section on
>Study Groups. A SG reading the P&P could easily
>miss this instruction entirely if it sits under
>7.2.
>
>Roger
>
>
>At 21:44 -0400 2005-10-16, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
> >Folks,
> >
> >
> >
> >We had a very low turnout on Tuesday (Thanks Pat and Steve!).
However
> >we reviewed the 'LMSC Organization' and sub-ballot titled 'when
> >appropriate'. We decided to slightly modify the first line of 'LMSC
> >Organization" with 'When appropriate' and eliminate the sub ballot.
We
> >reviewed the entire document, and did not see any other issues.
Please
> >review the LMSC Organization ballot. It is identical to what we had
in
> >July except for the one change mentioned. I assume if I hear nothing
> >back in the next week or so that you will all support it in November!
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> >Mat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >PS - I will review all the changes in light of the updated P&P and do
> >editorial updates to the P&P ballots to reflect those changes prior
to
> >the Plenary.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> >Senior Member Technical Staff
> >BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
> >Office: +1 973.633.6344
> >email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----------
> >This email is sent from the 802 Executive
> >Committee email reflector. This list is
> >maintained by Listserv.
> >
> >Content-Type: application/msword;
> >
>name="802.0-WG_LMSC_Organization_-_Proposed_Resolutions_051012.doc"
> >Content-Description:
> >802.0-WG_LMSC_Organization_-_Proposed_Resolutions_051012.doc
> >Content-Disposition: attachment;
> >
>filename="802.0-WG_LMSC_Organization_-_Proposed_Resolutions_051012.doc"
> >
> >Attachment converted: Little
> >Al:802.0-WG_LMSC_Organiz#A70D0.doc (WDBN/<IC>)
> >(000A70D0)
>
>----------
>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.
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.