Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment action item
Tony,
I have no argument with the intent. What I'm concerned about is the
mechanism.
One of the great shortfalls of all rules is that they a written with
good intentions by the original authors and then mis-interpreted or
subsequently mis-used because there is no guidance in the rule itself as
to how it is to be applied. As you suggest, it seems reasonable for the
EC to be interested in ensuring "that the right attention is paid to
cross-WG issues & overall architecture". Is the proposed rule the best
way to accomplish that?
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 9:30 AM
To: Bruce Kraemer
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment action
item
Bruce -
I would sincerely hope that the intent is NOT to get us into a major
outbreak of EC members making detailed comments on draft contents as
part of the EC review of a project - if they want to do that, then
they already have a means of doing it; either make comments on WG
ballots (anyone can do that, regardless of membership, and WGs have
to consider them), or join a Sponsor ballot group.
I believe the intent here is that the EC should be able to comment on
technical issues at a rather higher level - as Paul has said, in
order to ensure that the right attention is paid to cross-WG issues &
overall architecture, but also to ensure that projects meet their
commitments as documented in PAR and 5C documents.
Regards,
Tony
At 14:07 09/06/2008, Bruce Kraemer wrote:
>James et al,
>
>While I can agree that technical review is good I disagree with the
>proposed method for accomplishing it.
>
>If the intent of the new language is to allow the EC members to comment
>on the draft contents then it would be far more reasonable to revise
the
>P&P to include all EC members as part of the WG ballot pool. This, in
>reality, is what the proposed P&P revision suggests.
>
>Using the standard ballot comment/revision process would allow the WG
to
>consider those comments as part of the comment resolution process and
be
>far less disruptive.
>
>
>Bruce
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
>Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 5:29 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment action
>item
>
>All
>
>I agree with Geoff here. The EC should be able to ask technical
>questions about the draft, particularly as it relates to the 5Cs. Any
>discussion of coexistence, would necessarily involve a technical
>discussion.
>
>I would find it unlikely that a majority of the EC would delve into a
>detailed technical review of the draft. Nevertheless, the members of
>the EC should not be prevented from considering potential technical
>issues as they relate to the EC's role as sponsor.
>
>Suppose a WG submitted a draft that had an obvious technical hole
(e.g.,
>
>in situation A perform action B but B is not defined in the draft), but
>passed it anyway figuring they would "fix it in Sponsor ballot". In
>this case, the EC should refuse to forward it and ask the WG to
complete
>
>their work.
>
>I would imagine that these instances would be rare and would become
even
>
>more rare if it was known that the EC might refuse to pass on clearly
>flawed drafts.
>
>James Gilb
>
>Puthenkulam, Jose P wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
>----------
>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.