The changes to the first paragraph 5.2 are fairly
consistent in spirit with our operation of Study Groups but
require some attention - particularly on second extensions. The
resulting text is:
"No formal activity shall take place after six months from
the day of the first meeting of the Working Group or PAR Study
Group without formal submittal of a PAR to the IEEE-SA
Standards Board and assignment of a project number, unless a
single extension of six months for that activity is provided
by the Sponsor (see 5.1.2). The Sponsor shall include a
rationale in its meeting minutes when granting the extension.
A PAR Study Group is a subgroup of the Sponsor or Working
Group that is responsible for evaluating whether a standard
should be developed and, if so, to complete a PAR form for
Sponsor consideration. Only the NesCom Administrator has the
authority to assign project numbers (see the IEEE-SA Project
Numbering Policy)."
One thing I notice is the requirement to include a
rationale for the extension in the minutes. There is usually
something said about why the study group needs more time, but
I'm not sure it is always recorded in the minutes. We should
add it to the supporting material for the motion.
When a study group has it's first meeting at the interim
following the plenary where the study group was initially
approved, its first extension results in roughly 6 months of
operation. (E.g. approved in Nov of 2016, first meets in Jan
2017 starting the 6 month clock, 1st extension approved in
March.) "Roughly" because jitter in where meetings fall within
the month means that the plenary ending the first extension
may fall just beyond the 6 month line. (E.g., if the Jan 2017
meeting was the Wireless interim, then the July plenary ends
less than 6 months later, but a first day of meeting at the
beginning of the IEEE 802.3 meeting is Jan 9 so 6 months would
expire just before the plenary starts.
We uses one extension to get 6 months (or in some cases 6
months plus a few days) of operation and 2 extensions to get
10 months of operation.
If we feel that going a few days over 6 months is an issue,
we could avoid the issue by doing 2nd extension approvals at
the opening EC meeting instead of at the closing EC meeting.
Another option would be to process 2nd extensions on the EC
teleconference - since that occurs in the month before a
plenary, 6 months from it would always cover two plenaries.
I'm also a little concerned about the "single extension"
and whether we should try to move to doing one extension. Most
of our study groups require a first extension and the first
extension has never been turned down. I don't even recall a
case where a study group looked at something for two months
and then decided to abandon it, not requesting a 1st
extension. So perhaps we should make the initial Study Group
approval be for 6 months and allow one extension to add 6
months.
Regards,
Pat