Re: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
Tony,
You've raised a number of points that I accept going forward and would
certainly pledge to avoid any repeat offences.
Much of what you refer to should be captured in what I might refer to as
a "Chair's guide document" that collects standard practices that
augment rules and procedures not otherwise covered in either the P&P or
the OM.
With your permission I'll take the material below and start a chapter on
this topic for further consideration prior to or during the July
plenary.
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:05 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
I would agree that 802.11 should not be penalized in this instance;
however, if we are granting an exception here it should be a one-time
exception, period, and not a license for all of the newbie EC members
to assume that they will be granted a one-time "get out of jail free"
card.
However, I would make a few observations about the process of
submitting files for EC consideration:
Firstly, in my understanding, it is the Chair's responsibility (and
not the Recording Secretary's) to do any circulation that is required
in the P&P. This is the only occasion that I can remember when a
Chair has passed the problem over to the RS to execute; in reality,
once he had the PDFs all James did was to circulate them as
attachments to an email, which the .11 Chair could have done himself
(but please see below!), so apart from increasing the RS's workload
and causing the submission deadline to be missed, its not clear to me
what value was added there.
Secondly, there is no requirement anywhere in our P&P (nor should
there be IMHO) stipulating PDF as the format for submissions. The P&P
simply state that the PAR and 5C "...shall be circulated via the EC
reflector...", so it isn't at all clear to me on what basis James
made that stipulation.
Thirdly, and as far as I am concerned, this goes for all materials
that EC members need to circulate to each other, sending stuff as
attachments to emails is a royal PIA for the recipients, especially
for things like PARs and 5C's, or other materials where EC members
need to make their own constituents aware of the material. 802.1's
email reflector, for example, has a size limit on attachments as part
of our (very successful) SPAM filtering measures. I also don't like
gratuitously inflicting attachments of any size on members of the .1
reflector; I know high speed access is commonplace these days, but
some recipients (myself included) sometimes have to use low bandwidth
network connections to access their email. So if I receive a file
that has to be circulated to my WG, I end up posting it on my WG
website, which is simply making more work for me. This also means
that the unsolicited addition to my workload gets prioritized, and
can fall off the bottom of the stack as a result. Far better, and a
considerable courtesy to those that have to circulate the material
elsewhere, is for the sender to post the material on their WG or the
EC website and email the URL(s) to the EC. In fact, I would go as far
as suggesting that we codify that as a requirement in our new
operations manual. (Aside: There is a potential bottleneck with
uploading to the EC reflector, as not all of us have upload access;
however, it is worth noting that Luigi Napoli has recently
implemented an uploads webpage for 802.1 that allows anyone to submit
a file to an uploads subdirectory, and for the appropriate 802.1
officer to be notified - see http://ieee802.org/cgi-bin/upload_8021.
No reason why that shouldn't be done for the EC website, and have the
EC reflector as the recipient of the notifications.)
So I would respectfully request the .11 Chair to post the PAR and 5C
files on the .11 website (in reality, my guess is that they were
there already, and if not, they should be!) and then email the
reflector with the URLs.
Regards,
Tony
At 23:40 16/06/2008, Michael Lynch wrote:
>James,
>
>I agree that .11 should not be penalized if the documents were
>submitted to you on time.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "James Gilb" <gilb@IEEE.ORG>
>To: "STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>Sent: 6/16/08 17:29
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
>
>Pat
>
>Bruce sent me these on time, but I had a mix up in email and didn't get
>them posted until today.
>
>I don't think 802.11 should be punished for my mistake.
>
>Bruce will follow up and post the 5 criteria.
>
>James Gilb
>
>Pat Thaler wrote:
> > James,
> >
> > There is a problem. Our P&P have a specific procedure for approving
new
> > PARs (Clause 17). 17.2 contains the requirement:
> >
> > "Complete PARs shall be circulated via the EC email reflector to all
> > Executive Committee members no less than 30 days prior to the day of
the
> > Opening Executive Committee meeting of an LMSC Plenary session."
> >
> > You sent this today, June 16. Our Opening EC meeting is July 14.
That is
> > 28 days prior, not the required 30 days. There is an exemption to
this
> > rule for Maintenance PARs, division of existing work items and
similar
> > routine items but that wouldn't apply to either of these.
> >
> > Also, you didn't supply the 5 criteria for either of these. That
needs
> > to be precirculated along with the PAR for any PAR that introduces
new
> > functionality - which both these PARs do.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I don't see how we can consider these PARs in July
under
> > our rules.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pat
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
> > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 1:49 PM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
> >
> > All
> >
> > Here are two PARs for consideration at our closing plenary. They
are
> > from 802.11.
> >
> > James Gilb
> >
> > ----------
> > 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.
----------
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.