Re: [802SEC] +++ Current LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results +++ Editorial
Based on the comments, I'm not convinced this one is "ready for prime time."
Disapprove (at least until all comments are addressed in a new version that
can be studied).
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> [mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:05 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] +++ Current LMSC P&P Revision Ballot
> Results +++ Editorial
>
> 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. So far
> we have no vote. Frankly, I'm not too concerned on this one
> because if anyone objects to anything I'll simply put it back
> the way it was. But if you are going to vote against it (or
> care) please vote and comment. Don't just show up the final
> vote and express your opinions for the first time on the
> floor of the closing EC meeting.
>
>
>
> 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 DNV 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 YES
>
> ---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---
>
> TOTALS DNV DIS APP ABS
>
> total: -16- -01- -00- -00-
>
>
>
>
>
> Ballot Comments:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Grow, Bob [bob.grow@INTEL.COM] Wed
> 1/4/2006 12:34
> PM
>
>
>
> My first comment was a bit flipant. If there are very few
> mentions of task forces and task groups, why force the
> abreviation for both to be TG? Is it that big a problem to
> include TG/TF as the acronym?
>
>
>
> Carl raises a substantive issue with replacing all uses of
> WG/TAG with WG. With a bit more thought, I'm not sure that
> the simplification enhances clarity, it probably detracts
> from it, and we would need to inspect every case of TAG and
> determine if the substitution is correct.
>
> Probably something of a stretch for an editorial change as
> some of them are subtle.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Carl R. Stevenson [wk3c@WK3C.COM] Wed
> 1/4/2006 11:59
> AM
>
>
>
> > 1. If a TAG doesn't mind being a WG in the P&P then I'll have a
>
> > harder time arguing against a task force being abrievated as TG.
>
>
>
> Mat and Bob ...
>
>
>
> There is a distinct difference between a TAG and a WG ...
> TAGs may not write (full use) standards - only Recommended
> Practices and other "specialty"
>
> documents within their chartered purview ...
>
>
>
> Why would a task force be abbreviated "TG" ???
>
>
>
> > 2. No problem on lower case plenary and interim. Unless the WG
>
> > plenary change needs to distinguish a Plenary (i.e., LMSC
>
> > Plenary) from a generic plenary (i.e., WG Plenary or LMSC
> Plenary).
>
> > But then, capitalization being the only distinguishing
> characteristic
>
> > would probably be a bit too subtle for me.
>
>
>
> I have no problem with the little p ...
>
>
>
> > 3. Subclause 17.1 has bigger problems than a non-existent working
>
> > guide. We shouldn't reiterate NesCom and SB requirements
> at all, only
>
>
> > reference them. It is in conflict with 7.4 (two plenary sessions
>
> > instead of six months). The second bullet is instructions
> for filling
>
>
> > out the PAR form and don't belong here any more than the bad
>
> > reference.
>
>
>
> Agree with Bob ...
>
>
>
> > 4. It seems strange to me to replace things like "working groups"
>
> > with WG and leave the occurances already in the P&P of "WGs". Your
>
> > attempt to have the singular be defined as either singular or plural
>
> > is incomplete.
>
>
>
> Agree with Bob ...
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) Tue
> 1/3/2006 10:24
> PM
>
>
>
> Bob,
>
>
>
> Excellent comments! Here are some responses:
>
>
>
> 1) There are actually very few occurrences of Task Group or
> Task Force in the P&P, so it's not too critical how we
> resolve things. Off hand, I've always treated them as
> essentially the same thing with different names. If they are
> truly different things, I would be helpful if you clarified
> the difference to me. Perhaps they should be enumerated then.
>
>
>
> 2) Agreed.
>
>
>
> 3) I agree with the comment, but fixing it would be (in my
> opinion) more than editorial. So I plan to leave it be for now.
>
>
>
> 4)Opps! That slipped through the cracks, but I agree completely.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com] Tue
> 1/3/2006 8:22
> PM
>
>
>
> A few observations on your "more extensive" changes, and
> desired changes.
>
>
>
> 1. If a TAG doesn't mind being a WG in the P&P then I'll
> have a harder time arguing against a task force being
> abrievated as TG.
>
>
>
> 2. No problem on lower case plenary and interim. Unless the
> WG plenary change needs to distinguish a Plenary (i.e., LMSC
> Plenary) from a generic plenary (i.e., WG Plenary or LMSC
> Plenary). But then, capitalization being the only
> distinguishing characteristic would probably be a bit too
> subtle for me.
>
>
>
> 3. Subclause 17.1 has bigger problems than a non-existent
> working guide. We shouldn't reiterate NesCom and SB
> requirements at all, only reference them. It is in conflict
> with 7.4 (two plenary sessions instead of six months). The
> second bullet is instructions for filling out the PAR form
> and don't belong here any more than the bad reference.
>
>
>
> 4. It seems strange to me to replace things like "working
> groups" with WG and leave the occurances already in the P&P
> of "WGs". Your attempt to have the singular be defined as
> either singular or plural is incomplete.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) Mon
> 1/2/2006 11:49
> PM
>
>
>
> (Please see reflector archive for attachment)
>
>
>
> The last e-mail was the 'official' ballot which was needed to
> open the topic for discussion. Attached are my current
> recommended changes which
>
> are much more extensive. If any of you have any editorial
> issues you'd
>
> like to resolve, please send them to me (with recommended
> textual changes).
>
>
>
> There are additional changes I want to make, but I want to
> see if anyone objects to my positions first. Here is a short
> list of issues not yet addressed for comment:
>
>
>
> 1) There are a large number of occurrences of 'WG or TAG' and 'WG/TAG'
>
> in the text. I feel this is cumbersome and unnecessary. The
> original intent of the P&P TAG text was that TAG procedures
> are identical to WG procedures unless explicitly identified
> otherwise. I plan to replace most occurrences of the phrases
> above with 'WG' unless I hear objections to this approach.
>
>
>
> 2) There are many occurrences of 'Plenary' as a proper noun
> (capitalized). 'Interim' is almost never capitalized. I
> plan to eliminate most occurrences of the capitalization of
> 'plenary'. From a pure grammar perspective I think it can go
> either way. Let me know if you object.
>
>
>
> 3) In clause 17.1 (line 17) there is reference to a 'working
> guide' that I believe no longer exists. I plan to change the
> reference to a 'web page' unless people object.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.