| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Though in the reflector archive, various subscribers reported they had not received the below message, therefore resending. ___________ James, Since you have designated me as your spelling and grammar checker, I have a few non-substantive comments of that sort. BUT, I also have other comments that might cause EC members to conclude the WG P&P is not ready for submittal again. General — There are a lot of brackets which makes inclusion of the text ambiguous. The instructions say to either remove the bracketed text (assume including the brackets), or remove the brackets if used, this hasn’t been done. Page 6, 1.5 — "An Interim Session is set of meetings...” grammar correction to "An Interim Session is a set of meetings…" Page 7, 1.5 — "A Session is collection of …” grammar correction to "A Session is a collection of …” Page 11, 3.2.5,a) — Readability would be improved if the run-on sentence is broken up, but I note the problem is AudCom’s from making the lettered list phrases rather than sentences. The ending "Second Vice Chair does .” left me thinking “does what?”. Perhaps replace “does” with “takes over” for consistency with the First Vice Chair text. Now for a few substantive issues! Page 4, 1.5 — There is a baseline problem that complicates the document. All participants must be either a member or non-member, but there is nothing in the baseline that defines any rights or other status except they can’t vote. In the past, IEEE legal has given us the interpretation that a subscriber to a reflector is a participant. I hope this remains true. Unfortunately the Baseline P&P use italics in 1.5 to define non-member, member, voting member, and non-voting member. (This makes the word “member” ambiguous in some cases in both AudCom and our text, and this use of italics differs from other terms that are capitalized (e.g., “Chair”). Uncapitalized (i.e., no italics) is appropriate for “IEEE SA member” and other members that aren’t referring to WG membership, so AudCom use of capitals for the terms would improve the baseline. I think we would be better off if we could change the 1.5 definition of terms. For us, Members are a subset of Participants, and I don’t know of any reason we want to identify a group which is non-member participants. Similarly, I have trouble with the need for a definition for non-voting members (yes I noted 4.3). Enough whinging about the baseline. What is wrong with the current baseline WG P&P text and the 1.5 definitions of member being either voting or non-voting:
4.6 and 4.7 — I have a practical problem with both the position of Yvette, and the text. I find three lists used in the P&P: WG Voting Member list (3.4.5,h), WG Participant List (4.6), and WG Membership list (4.7). An example of a practical problem is Direct Vote Live. As I understand, it uses email addresses in validating who is allowed to vote, and that has to be populated to use the tool. Email addresses are only included on the WG Participant List, and there is no exemption for using keeping any of the PII contained in the WG Participant List for any purpose except for updating the list. This means that volunteers cannot practically run a tool the uses any of the PII in the WG Participant List. This makes things less secure than using the WG Membership List. But The WG Membership List does not even information to separate voting members and non-voting members per the definitions of 1.5. How does the Secretary fulfill their duty in 3.5.4,h when the Membership List. It seems to me that this is mostly a baseline problem. Would AudCom allow extraction of voting status of members from the Participant list to create the voting member list? Would AudCom (contrary to the instructions) allow voting status of members to be included as item c)? Would AudCom be willing to change 3.5.4,h) to reference the WG Membership list instead of creating a third list? Would IEEE SA Risk Management recognize the practical need to use a subset of the PII to keep our process with electronic tools both practical and a secure implementation of more cumbersome methods for doing things like roll call voting. —Bob
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1 |