Re: [802SEC] Updated text for 'WG Membership & Meeting' P&P Revision
Mat -
Can you clarify - are Roger's unresolved issues with the proposal I made,
or on other aspects of the ballot material?
Regards,
Tony
At 19:17 16/11/2005, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>Why don't we keep the slot. I will generated updated versions of the
>changes tonight, but I think Roger / others still have unresolved issues
>on this change so I want to have one last shot at a face to face.
>
>
>
>Mat
>
>
>
>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>Senior Member Technical Staff
>BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>
> _____
>
>From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 2:11 PM
>To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
>Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] Updated text for 'WG Membership & Meeting' P&P
>Revision
>
>
>
>Mat -
>
>I presume that you have now adopted my proposal, in which case, there is
>no longer a need for the scheduled Thurs PM meeting?
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>At 19:16 14/11/2005, Sherman, Matthew J. \(US SSA\) wrote:
>
>
>
>If there are no objections by tomorrow evening, I will adopt Tony's
>recommendations.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mat
>
>
>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>Senior Member Technical Staff
>BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>
> _____
>
>From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
>Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 2:03 PM
>To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
>Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Updated text for 'WG Membership & Meeting' P&P
>Revision
>
>At 23:53 13/11/2005, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>
>Folks,
>
>
>
>As requested, I've modified the existing 'WG Membership & Meeting' P&P
>Revision to be against the most recently approved P&P (which should be
>posted shortly). No substantive changes have been made.
>
>
>
>Best Regards,
>
>
>
>Mat
>
>
>Mat -
>
>The wording I have a problem with is as follows:
>
>"WG election procedures shall be defined within the WG P&P. Prior to
>their establishment, election procedures must be reviewed and approved
>by the EC before implementation."
>
>The first sentence mandates the existence of a WG P&P document;
>otherwise, the "shall" cannot be complied with.
>
>Yes, at some point, the SA will sick some set of model WG P&P on us;
>however, forcing all 802 WGs to establish P&P ahead of time, with the
>likelihood that the SA actions will cause us to re-work them later on,
>seems to be a gratuitous waste of all our time.
>
>Also, I see absolutely no rational reason why we should have N
>differently worded sets of election procedures for officer positions, so
>I can see no reason why this issue shouldn't be resolved by adding WG
>election procedures to the 802 P&P.
>
>My proposal is, therefore:
>
>1) That both sentences in the above quoted text is removed from the
>existing P&P rules change; and
>
>2) A separate rules change be initiated (which I am happy to do if you
>wish) to add WG officer election procedures to the 802 P&P.
>
>If either of those sentences stay in, I will vote against this change.
>
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>
>----------
>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.