Ben,
I suggested that the rules are
ambiguous, and I still think they are, especially when the EC motion to
create or renew the SG isn't explicit about the charter.
In the
case of the Privacy Recommendation Study Group, it seems that scope of
the SG was such that it was completed with the approval of its PAR, so I
agree it went out of business with the PAR approval.
Roger
Benjamin
A. Rolfe wrote:
Hi all,
I got a bit lost in the thread: Did we answer the original
question as to the status of the Security ECSG?
If I read the thread correctly, that group was chartered with a
single, well defined task to study and produced 1 PAR which has
been approved.
The answer given by Jamesi s that the ECSG is now disbanded and
no further EC action is required.
Is that correct?
Thanks
Ben
On 10/31/2015 12:29 PM, Geoff Thompson
wrote:
Colleagues-
To David's argument I would add that
there is no reason why multiple Study Groups couldn't:
- Meet together
- Have the same Chairman/Officers
although I believe that they would have to produce separate sets of minutes or at least produce minutes that were separable by Study Group.
But keeping to the principle of one Study Group = one PAR package seems like a good rule.
That makes administration of the work from the EC level simpler.
(If it happened to be multiple instances of of an ECSG we have already addressed the issue of one person on the EC = one vote on the EC.)
Best regards,
Geoff Thompson
On Oct 30, 2015, at 3:05 PMPDT, Law, David <dlaw@HPE.COM> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
I have to agree with Geoff that our rules don't seem to have been developed based on a Study Group producing more than one PAR.
The text in subclause 5.4 of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Policies and Procedures that states that 'The Study Group shall have a defined task with specific output and a specific time frame established within which it is allowed to study the subject' and that 'After the Study Group recommendations have been accepted by the parent body, the Study Group will be disbanded no later than the end of the next plenary session.'. This would seem to allow more than one PAR from a single Study Group.
Except, as already observed, the very same subclause also contains the statement that 'A Study Group is disbanded upon approval of the PAR by the IEEE-SA Standards Board.' which appears to me rather definitive, and also I note the use of the singular here and in two sentences before which states 'A study group is expected to submit a PAR to the EC for consideration by the 2nd plenary session after its initiation.'. I will also note that the IEEE-SA Study Group guidelines are written in singular terms with respect to the PAR <https://standards.ieee.org/develop/corpchan/studygrp.pdf>.
Based on these apparently conflicting statements I've personally advised that requesting a single Study Group to generate two PARs may not the best approach, and to request two Study Group instead. And just the sheer fact that we're having this discussion on the reflector IMHO illustrates the rules are not entirely clear on this point, and that clarification may be required.
If that were to happen I do have a few thoughts. The first is how many PARs is it acceptable for a Study Group to ask to be chartered for, to take this to an extreme a Working Group could have a single perpetual Study Group that produces all its PARs. I don't think such a Study Group would get approved, but what is the limit. The second is does the number of PARs a Study Group is going to generate have to be part of the chartering motion or, for example, is it acceptable to charter a Study Group that is expecting to generate just one PAR, but then once work is underway have the Study Group come back and ask to be chartered to do two.
I'm sure that others will have other questions, I'd therefore like to suggest that we add this as an item for the January EC workshop.
Best regards,
David
-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: 29 October 2015 12:44
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Oct 06 Teleconference Minutes Posted
Roger-
RE:
It seems that a Study Group could develop two PARs.
However, I believe that our rules were not developed with that in mind.
If/when we have that as a case then the motion should specifically address that issue.
In the case under question, I do not believe it is the case that the ECSG was chartered to develop more than one PAR, even though the subject area may well warrant more than one project. Therefore, I don't believe that the majority of those voting on the motion were thinking in terms of this particular SG having more than one PAR under its development during its life as an ECSG. A major part of the ECSG task was to determine which WG (new or existing) would be home to its work. I don't believe that there was ever an intention to "place" a project in an existing WG yet continue as an ECSG. Although that would be possible, it is unprecedented in 802 and would, in my opinion, require explicit arrangement ahead of time.
On the other hand, it is quite the usual to have a contingent (explicit or implicit) motion to continue the SG (EC or WG) should a NESCOM bound PAR not be approved.
In fact, this is so much the usual that we have become sloppy with the wording of such motions to the extent we leave out the appropriate contingency clause in the wording.
I believe that is the case here.
Once the PAR is approved as an 802.1 Project the activity is to move in its entirety into 802.1 and the ECSG ceases to exist.
BTW, it is my belief that once the EC decided to assign the project to 802.1, the life of the ECSG should have been terminated (as of the end of that EC meeting) and 802.1 would take over.
There may some ambiguity in the P&P but I believe that it was more that the wording of the motion was less wonderful than it should have been.
Best regards,
Geoff
On Oct 28, 2015, at 11:37 AMPDT, Roger Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org> wrote:
James,
It seems that a Study Group could develop two PARs. If it's to be disbanded upon approval of "the PAR", one could ask "Which PAR: the first or the second?" It's not unreasonable to presume the second one.
More generally, 5.4 says "after the Study Group recommendations have been accepted by the parent body, the Study Group will be disbanded no later than the end of the next plenary session." So if the Study Group has recommendations (other than the first or only PAR) that are still awaiting acceptance by the parent body, then this says it's not supposed to be disbanded between plenaries.
So I still think there is at least a little ambiguity in the P&P. IMHO.
Roger
James P. K. Gilb wrote:
(Sorry about that, I responded to Roger only the first time).
Roger
It does say that earlier in the same subclause. Note that it is only specific about its charter and does not say that it cannot be dissolved earlier. For example, the EC could vote to dissolve it prior to the next plenary session. Or, in this case, the rules state that it is dissolved upon approval of the PAR.
However, a motion from the EC can't override the rules in the P&P, which state it dissolves with approval of the PAR.
The EC is supposed to assign the PAR to a group, hence upon approval of the PAR, that group has the responsibility for that topic.
I don't see any ambiguity.
IMHO.
James Gilb
On 10/27/2015 01:54 PM, Roger Marks wrote:
James,
That's a strong point. On the other hand, 5.4 says:
"A Study Group shall report its recommendations, shall have a limited
lifetime, and is chartered plenary session-to-plenary session."
and EC Motion #40 (2015-07-17) says:
"To approve the extension of the IEEE 802 EC Privacy Recommendation
Study Group until the end of the November 2015 meeting."
so I think there is at least a little ambiguity.
Roger
James P. K. Gilb wrote:
All
I had an action item:
1) Gilb to determine when an 802 ECSG is disbanded per the 802
policies and procedures.
Based on the approved IEEE 802 LMSC Policies and Procedures:
1) The Privacy ECSG was disbanded upon approval of the PAR by the
IEEE-SA standards board.
2) With the disbanding of the ECSG, Juan Carlos is no longer a member
of the EC.
Rationale:
In our approved P&P, Clause 5.4, page 14, first paragraph: Two types
of Study Groups, Working Group Study Groups (WGSGs) and Executive
Committee Study Groups (ECSGs) are listed. Hence, when the term
"Study Group" is used the text without a modifier, it means either
type of group.
In Clause 5.4, final paragraph, it says "After the Study Group
recommendations have been accepted by the parent body, the Study Group
will be disbanded no later than the end of the next plenary session. A
Study Group is disbanded upon approval of the PAR by the IEEE-SA
Standards Board."
IMHO.
James Gilb
On 10/26/2015 01:09 PM, John D'Ambrosia wrote:
All,
The minutes from the Oct 06 EC Teleconference have been posted.
Please see
http://ieee802.org/minutes/Conference-calls/2015-10-06-call-minutes-v0.pdf.
My thanks to Mr. Gilb for filling in for me during a computer moment.
Regards,
John D'Ambrosia
Recording Secretary, IEEE 802 LMSC
----------
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.
----------
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.
|