Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment action item
Dear Geoff,
I agree with the intent for the EC to have more technical oversight over
the WG's drafts. I also applaud you as the sincere crusader, in terms of
doing what's best for our body.
At the same time, I feel when a motion is called for a vote, to do
justice in terms of a technical review of hundreds of pages of a WG
draft standard without adequate planning, time and in some cases
technical background, it will be difficult. So the rule change as
proposed does not really accomplish the intent you are after.
Maybe one approach might be to allow all EC members to submit comments
in the Sponsor Ballot with some special designation. As this could be
treated as mandatory co-ordination, the comments could be dealt with by
the WGs with more seriousness.
The sad situation we are in, is not something we can fix, just by
changing this rule. Because, I see documents that have barely 75%
approval passing the EC whereas, documents even with 90+% approval not
necessarily making it. So with this rule change, I'm highly skeptical
that we will accomplish much. But we might surely create more hurdles
for the development process, we never intended to create, especially
when we walk down the path of interpreting this change.
thanks & best regards,
jose
________________________________
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortel.com]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 3:22 PM
To: Puthenkulam, Jose P
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment
action item
Jose-
I believe that you are incorrect.
I do not think that:
"The IEEE Sponsor ballot is the place outside the WG for
engaging technically and addressing all comments including architectural
consistency issues etc and matters the EC is interested in overseeing."
When a member of the EC participates in an 802 Sponsor Ballot
he/she does so as an individual. The IEEE-SA has no special category for
those of us who are responsible for technical oversight. Further, any
comment that a member of the EC might put in as part of their
fulfillment of their oversight responsibility would be dealt with in a
forum that has no responsibility for anything other than satisfying
their own project wishes.
The members of the EC as a collective entity have a
responsibility to ensure that the proposed draft has fulfilled any
promises that were made in the 5 Criteria or in terms of meeting their
responsibilities to be a "good member" of the 802 family.
802 has done a miserable job of fulfilling this responsibility
over the years. That is, however, no reason for us to write that
responsibility out of our rules. It must remain procedurally acceptable
to bring this sort of issue up at the EC when a Working Group has failed
to do its job adequately. It is already an immense burden to get the EC
to act on such an issue as the majority is generally inclined to let
other working groups do anything that they want. There is no reason to
increase that burden by block it with a "procedural only" rule.
Best regards,
Geoff
At 10:50 AM 6/2/2008 , Puthenkulam, Jose P wrote:
Dear Paul, All,
I've some thoughts to share on this.
During the conf. call I did hear someone mention that, for
technical comments the EC members should participate in the Sponsor
Ballots or in some cases WG ballots also as technical experts. I think
that is most appropriate way to engage technically with regards to the
technical content of the WG drafts.
Here is my rationale for this:
1.During a motion to move the WG draft to the sponsor ballot
stage, if technical comments get generated by the EC, then we do not
have an effective process to deal with them other than the WG letter
ballot itself. So we should avoid creating more work than necessary
here.
2.The IEEE Sponsor ballot is the place outside the WG for
engaging technically and addressing all comments including architectural
consistency issues etc and matters the EC is interested in overseeing.
3.So while I very much feel the EC members should have some
technical oversight over WG activities including content of the drafts,
I think that oversight should be undertaken as part of the existing
procedures we have
- Approval of PARs
- Sponsor ballots
- WG letter ballots when EC members are also WG members and
can participate
So I feel when a motion is made at the EC to forward the WG
draft to sponsor ballot, may not be the time for the EC members to
engage in technical review of the content. Instead the focus should be
the review of the WG ballot procedures and comment resolutions including
approval rate, disaapproves etc.
So maybe we should leave the existing wording for OM 3.1.1 as
is. However, maybe some other place we could add some clarity in terms
of the technical oversight responsibility if it is not there already.
Hope this helps,
Thanks & Best Regards,
jose
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> Paul Nikolich
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:56 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment
action item
>
> Mat,
>
> Per today's call, I had the action to provide alternative
> wording to the OM 3.1.1.e "Examine and approve WG draft
> standards for proper submission to Sponsor ballot group; not
> for technical content.
>
> I suggest the deletion of "; not for technical content"
>
> Implementing the deletion maintains consistency with the OM
> 3.1.1.c "Provide procedural and, if necessary, TECHNICAL
> GUIDANCE to the WG and TAG as it relates to their charters."
> (emphasis added)
>
> Altough the 'technical guidance' component of the EC funtions
> tends to be secondary to procedural guidance, it is an
> important component, especially when trying to maintain
> architectural consistency across a Sponsor which grows to the
> size and breadth of 802.
>
> Regards,
>
> --Paul
>
> ----------
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.