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.