Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [P1619-3] P1619.3 Organizational Motion



Rather than deal with all that (again), why wouldn't you just call for a plenary meeting whenever important votes are needed in .3?  How many SISWG members would object to that alternate approach?

Larry H  

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Hibbard [mailto:Eric.Hibbard@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 3:37 PM
To: P1619-3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [P1619-3] P1619.3 Organizational Motion

Wearing a 1619.3 hat... The importance of the frequency of meetings is related to the criteria established for maintaining voting membership. When SISWG was focused on a single standard, we had very lax attendance rules (twice in a 12 month period), but over time this resulted in unrealistic quorum requirements to conduct business. 

There is nothing to say that the operating procedures for a new WG have to be the same as SISWG. For that matter, the WG would need to decide whether it uses the individual or corporate membership approach.

-Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Hubis, Walt [mailto:Walt.Hubis@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:17 PM
To: P1619-3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [P1619-3] P1619.3 Organizational Motion

I presume we could decide what frequency of meeting would work best. Some members have suggested meetings every two weeks. OF course, we could choose to differentiate between plenary meetings (voting meetings) and working meetings.

-Walt

--

Walt Hubis
Software Architect
Engenio Storage Group

LSI Corporation
5400 Airport Blvd Ste 100
Boulder, CO 80301 USA
Phone: (303) 381-4332
Mobile: (303) 641-8528
walt.hubis@xxxxxxx
http://www.lsi.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry.Hofer@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Larry.Hofer@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 3:14 PM
To: Hubis, Walt; P1619-3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Larry.Hofer@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: P1619.3 Organizaional Motion

How often would "official" 1619.3 meetings be held? Monthly maybe?
Larry H 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hubis, Walt [mailto:Walt.Hubis@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:32 PM
To: P1619-3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [P1619-3] P1619.3 Organizaional Motion

At the last P1619.3 meeting is was recommended that a motion be brought forward during the next SISWG plenary meeting to move the P1619.3 key management project out of SISWG and into a separate work group under IEEE Information Assurance Standards Committee (IASC). 

The group members agreed that the current method of requiring P1619.3 members to attend SISWG plenary meetings in order to maintain voting privileges and to have a binding vote is inefficient. In addition, there is only limited overlap between the P1619, P1619.1, and P1619.2 projects and the P1619.3 project. The intention is to provide binding votes and attendance for voting privileges strictly within the P1619.3 work group.

The proposed text of the motion is:

"Shall the P1619.3 Key Management Project of SISWG be moved to a separate working group under the IEEE Information Assurance Standards Committee (IASC)?'

Please comment on this proposal or recommend any changes to the wording of this motion through the reflector. The next meeting of the SISWG plenary is on December 16, 2009.

Thanks,
Walt Hubis

--

Walt Hubis
Software Architect
Engenio Storage Group

LSI Corporation
5400 Airport Blvd Ste 100
Boulder, CO 80301 USA
Phone: (303) 381-4332
Mobile: (303) 641-8528
walt.hubis@xxxxxxx
http://www.lsi.com