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

Re: [802SEC] +++ Current LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results +++ WG Plenary



Disapprove.  I also agree with Bob G. (and Mike T.)

Carl
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Takefman (tak) [mailto:tak@CISCO.COM] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:23 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ Current LMSC P&P Revision Ballot 
> Results +++ WG Plenary
> 
> Matt, 
> 
> I vote disapprove, I essentially agree with Bob Grow.
> 
> I have sympathy with the quorum problem and am willing to see 
> that addressed, but it should be dealt with in the interim 
> meeting section.
> 
> I believe that the 1 year pre-announcement period is 
> sufficient to remove the quorum requirement.
> 
> However, I think we need to have a consistent view of aging 
> and acquisition of WG membership, and creating more plenary 
> meetings is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> cheers, 
> 
> mike
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> Michael Takefman              tak@cisco.com
> Distinguished Engineer,       Cisco Systems
> Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> 3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> voice: 613-254-3399       cell:613-220-6991 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> > [mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:54 PM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> > Subject: [802SEC] +++ Current LMSC P&P Revision Ballot 
> Results +++ WG 
> > Plenary
> > 
> > Dear EC members,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Below you will see the current status of this ballot. All comments 
> > received to date are compiled at the end. Please let me know if you 
> > see any errors.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > As previously noted, this ballot closes February 2nd (in 
> two days!).  
> > So far we have one vote.  Please fulfill you duty as 
> representatives 
> > to the executive committee and participate in the ballot.  
> Don't just 
> > show up at the final vote and express your opinions for the 
> first time 
> > then.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Mat
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Voters                  DNV   DIS   APP   ABS   Comments Provided?
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > 00 Paul Nikolich        DNV
> > 
> > 01 Mat Sherman          DNV                     YES
> > 
> > 02 Pat Thaler          DNV
> > 
> > 03 Buzz Rigsbee         DNV
> > 
> > 04 Bob O'Hara           DNV
> > 
> > 05 John Hawkins         DNV
> > 
> > 06 Tony Jeffree         DNV
> > 
> > 07 Bob Grow                   DIS               YES
> > 
> > 08 Stuart Kerry         DNV
> > 
> > 09 Bob Heile            DNV
> > 
> > 10 Roger Marks          DNV
> > 
> > 11 Mike Takefman        DNV
> > 
> > 12 Mike Lynch           DNV
> > 
> > 13 Steve Shellhammer    DNV
> > 
> > 14 Jerry Upton          DNV
> > 
> > 15 Ajay Rajkumar        DNV
> > 
> > 16 Carl Stevenson       DNV
> > 
> > ---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---
> > 
> > TOTALS                   DNV  DIS  APP  ABS
> > 
> > total:                  -16- -01- -00- -00-
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Ballot Comments:
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > ----------------------------------------
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > ----------------------------------------
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > ----------------------------------------
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > ----------------------------------------
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > ----------------------------------------
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > ----------------------------------------
> > 
> > Ivan OAKES [ivan.oakes@st.com]
> > Wed 1/4/2006 6:53 AM
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > A change for the better!
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > There is a typo "much" should be "must" in the new 8.3 section.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > ----------------------------------------
> > 
> > Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com]
> > Wed 1/4/2006 11:10 AM
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Mat:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I think this is a bad approach to achieve the objectives.  
> I think the 
> > right way to address quorum is in the interim WG meetings 
> section, and 
> > that roll-on and roll-off of attendance should also be addressed 
> > directly, not in this obtuse manner.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > ----------------------------------------
> > 
> > Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)[mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM]
> > Tue 1/3/2006 11:30 PM
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Bob,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Once again some excellent comments.  I'd need to think about how to 
> > address them.  The more important question I have is - Are 
> you for or 
> > against the concept?
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > It is not clear to me from your comments if you are trying 
> to make the 
> > idea work, or believe it should be scrapped on principle.  
> The details 
> > can be fixed, but I won't bother if people think this is a bad idea.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > WG Plenary have pluses and minuses.  In general it passes greater 
> > autonomy to the working groups which by definition is at 
> the cost of 
> > some unity within LMSC. My opinion is that some groups feel 
> interims 
> > deserve equal status with plenary.
> > Other groups do not.  This P&P revision is intended to let 
> WG make the 
> > choice for themselves.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > There are some areas where I feel it is essential to have 
> commonality 
> > across LMSC.  I happen to feel very strongly about the work the 
> > architecture group is doing.  We also need a consistent process for 
> > handling PAR's and drafts.  Key process issues such as 
> membership and 
> > voting should have a uniform framework.  Periodically all 
> our groups 
> > should meet together.  But how often per year the individual groups 
> > meet and how many of those meetings are designated as 'plenary' I 
> > don't see as critical to LMSC as a whole.  Giving WG some 
> flexibility 
> > in terms of how they handle these issues may smooth some of the 
> > tensions that exist today.  So I'm inclined to push for 
> this revision.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Anyway, I encourage folks to voice their opinions on this change - 
> > particularly the general concept.  I recognize the 
> specifics will need 
> > some work but let's start with the question of whether the idea has 
> > merit first.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > ----------------------------------------
> > 
> > Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com]
> > Tue 1/3/2006 9:14 PM
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I vote disapprove.  This is poorly written, is grossly 
> incomplete and 
> > if approved would introduce significant ambiguity in the 
> document, and 
> > further divergence between the unifying characteristics of LMSC WGs.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > General -- This change attempts to make plenary generic for LMSC 
> > plenary or WG plenary for avoiding quorum requirements and for 
> > membership determination.  There are though 74 occurrences 
> of plenary 
> > in the body or the current P&P, most not related to the stated 
> > rationale.  A few are qualified as "LMSC plenary" already, but most 
> > others would need to be edited to clarify that the plenary 
> referred to 
> > was an LMSC plenary, otherwise the ambiguity becomes a problem.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Page 1, line 31 -- At present, LMSC session and plenary session are 
> > synonyms.  This change makes the headings and much of the content 
> > below confusing.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Page 1, line 43 -- This is an example of something that 
> doesn't make 
> > sense if plenary is generic for LMSC plenary or WG plenary.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Page 2, line 37 -- I don't believe the second sentence of 8.3 adds 
> > anything.  Whether or not WGs co-locate has nothing to do 
> with whether 
> > or not it is a WG plenary session.  I also find the final 
> sentence of 
> > little value.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Page 2, line 35 -- I find the paragraph awkward.  Ignoring my 
> > substantive problems with the proposed change, I would change for 
> > readability as follows:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > "In addition to LMSC plenary sessions, an LMSC WG/TAG may hold WG 
> > Plenary sessions. A WG/TAG may hold no more than one such session 
> > between LMSC Plenary sessions. A WG plenary session shall 
> be announced 
> > at least one year in advance; and shall be designated as a 
> WG Plenary 
> > session.  The announcement must include the exact date(s) and venue.
> > 
> > Dates and venue may only be changed during this required 
> notice period 
> > in extreme cases where acts of nature or governments make the venue 
> > unavailable, or prevent attendance of a significant number of WG 
> > members."
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Page 2, line 41 -- This introduces inconsistency with 
> 7.2.3.1.  What 
> > now is a "duly constituted WG interim"?  It introduces further 
> > divergence in WG practice.  This does not disallow a duly 
> constituted 
> > WG or TF/TG meeting to be substituted for a plenary, and therefore 
> > would allow membership to be gained in as little as 2 months.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > While many believe accellerated attrition of the member list is 
> > beneficial, it would cut the time for WGs holding WG plenaries to 
> > nominally 6 months while leaving those groups not holding 
> WG plenaries 
> > at nominaly 12 or 14 months.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > One can become a member without ever attending an LMSC plenary.  No 
> > participation in PAR review or other items that unify the groups of 
> > LMSC would then be part of their experience.  This also 
> puts us on the 
> > slipery slope of other items that can only be handled at an LMSC 
> > plenary session.  A slope I'm reluctant to approach.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > This also makes it even more difficult to maintain 
> membership in two 
> > groups because of more rapid age out.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > ----------------------------------------
> > 
> > David Cypher [mailto:david.cypher@nist.gov] Tuesday, 
> January 03, 2006 
> > 10:23 AM
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >    In 8.3 there is a much that should be a must, but really 
> should be 
> > a shall.
> > 
> > I hope that this is not the typo that Mat fixed. :-)
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> ----------
> 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.