Re: [RE] Monday RE discussion announcement
There are a number of requirements that apply to any IEEE 802.3 task force meeting:
It has to be open.
The task force membership agrees to hold the interim meeting.
Time, place and agenda must be announced with adequate notice.
It is the chair's job to call meetings.
The same requirements apply to study group meetings.
I don't think any of these requirements change for an ad hoc meeting. Ad hoc means on a specific topic and it doesn't necessarily imply any less formality of the rules. That you announced that the meeting was open doesn't replace the other two rules. It is arguable that a meeting announced for a particular location shortly in advance isn't truely open because many people may not be able to attend.
Bob pointed out one flaw in the meeting you announced - the lack of notice; but there were other important flaws as well. As far as I can tell from the January minutes, the study group did not even discuss holding this meeting much less approve it. The chair did not call the meeting.
Two individual members of a study group or task force don't have the standing to call a study group meeting even if they call it "ad hoc". The ad hocs we have are formed by agreement of the study group or task force normally when there is a narrow topic (e.g. a channel model) that only a small portion of the group has the interest and skills to work on.
Individuals can always choose to meet together to work on a preparing a proposal or whatever, but when they do that it isn't a task force or study group meeting. Such meetings shouldn't be announced on our reflectors.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of David V James
Sent: Thursday, 24 February, 2005 1:55 PM
To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [RE] Monday RE discussion announcement
Bob:
I'm quite confused by your statement:
>> If a meeting is by-invitation only
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The issue that instigated this discussion was your concern
over an _open_ invitation posted on the reflector.
From the email and your follow-up with our Chair, I assume
that you wish to have all informal discussion meetings _private_
and _not_ announced on the reflector.
While I am willing to use a private reflector, I don't believe
this is in the best interests of any IEEE group.
As I noted previously, I would be happy to have this discussion
at the LMSC or Procom, if you think this to be an 802 and/or
IEEE rule issue, respectively.
Since there will be no more announcements before the Atlanta
meeting, I believe that review date will be acceptable to all.
DVJ
David V. James
3180 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Home: +1.650.494.0926
+1.650.856.9801
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax: +1.360.242.5508
Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Grow, Bob
>> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:39 AM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: Re: [RE] Monday RE discussion announcement
>>
>>
>> David:
>>
>> Yes we encourage between meeting work, though we can encourage without
>> facilitating them. If a meeting is by-invitation only, it does not meet
>> IEEE requirements for openness and therefore is not appropriate for
>> posting on the reflector. We still encourage those meetings to generate
>> consensus in support of 802.3 work by an alliance, but we have asked
>> alliances formed in support of 802.3 work (e.g., Gigabit Ethernet
>> Alliance, 10 Gigabit Ethernet Alliance, Ethernet in the First Mile
>> Alliance) to not announce their meetings on IEEE reflectors. Similarly,
>> if companies want to get together to see if they can agree on things
>> that is fine. The alliance meetings, or multi-company meetings though
>> are not 802.3 meetings.
>>
>> Colleagues:
>>
>> Had the original announcement included the text you provided this
>> morning clearly indicating that the meeting was not an official SG
>> meeting the group would never have gone down this rat hole. The fact
>> that so much time has been consumed on this though is another argument
>> why such announcements on reflectors can become a problem.
>>
>> I don't have either RROR or a dictionary handy, but within 802.3 we
>> generally use ad hoc in conjunction with the WG and/or SG/TF
>> identification only for meetings chartered by the group for a specific
>> purpose. Alternate uses of ad hoc without implication of WG or SG/TF
>> sponsorship is fine. I did not point to anything in the rules about ad
>> hoc, because I had no objection to (pick your preferred form) "ad hoc"
>> or "adhoc".
>>
>> I am not the person responsible for monitoring this reflector, and I
>> leave a lot of latitude it to each SG/TF and usually rely on the SG/TF
>> Chair to assure their reflector is appropriately used. Similarly, I
>> would not attempt to tell Mr. Tafekman that my personal preferences for
>> appropriate traffic should be adopted by 802.17 (except where it
>> contradicts IEEE P&P); nor did I think that my clearly indicated
>> personal opinion about such announcements placing a reflector on a
>> slippery slope would be interpreted as a position of 802.3 as you seem
>> to have done.
>>
>> Can we PLEASE let this thread die!
>>
>> --Bob
>>
>> P.s. My apologies for failure to run spell check and for incomplete
>> sentences. I've focused on an IEEE Executive Committee teleconference
>> and a duly-noticed IEEE P802.3an Task Force interim meeting while
>> multiplexing to do a little email.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]
>> On Behalf Of David V James
>> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 10:38 AM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: Re: [RE] Monday RE discussion announcement
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> I continue to be confused.
>>
>> Does 802.3 indeed wish to encourage between-meeting discussions?
>> I know that 802.17 encouraged such adhoc meetings, as well as
>> encouraging the use of their reflector. The intent (as I understood
>> it) was to allow birds-of-a-feather meetings to be attended by
>> and/all, so the maximum amount of progress could be obtained.
>>
>> 802.17 also had private by-invitation only meetings at
>> the beginning. Both served useful purposes and helped hard
>> problems (and extensive proposed editing changes) to be
>> solved in a timely fashion.
>>
>> Other comments follow.
>>
>> >> My point was that this should not be called an "802.3 RE Study Group
>> ad
>> >> hoc meeting". If you want to call it an ad hoc on residential
>> Ethernet
>> >> that is your perogative.
>>
>> I did not find the name "adhoc" mentioned in the 802.3 rules, nor did
>> you (as requested) provide a reference to text I may have missed.
>>
>> As such, I assume there is really no concern with the use of the word
>> "adhoc", as your initial text seemed to imply. But, I will take your
>> suggested name "Adhoc on Residential Ethernet" as a title for future
>> announcements.
>>
>>
>> >> As Chair though I attempt to make sure we are
>> >> following the rules. If this were a study group meeting it has to be
>> >> properly called per our rules. It is not anyone's perogative to in
>> any
>> >> way indicate that an informal gathering of people is an 802.3 or RE
>> >> Study Group sanctioned meeting, which is implied by the title
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> I think we resolved the nomenclature problem.
>>
>>
>> >> given and reinforced by the use of the RESG reflector.
>> Its hard to provide opportunities to interested parties,
>> if one is denied access to them.
>>
>>
>> >> Personally (Bob Grow, not the Chair of 802.3),
>> Personally (David James, a non-paid individual contributor),
>> I think that open offline discussions should be encouraged,
>> not discouraged.
>>
>>
>> >> I think using the study group reflector for this kind of thing
>> >> puts the group on a slipery slope, because you then have to start
>> ^^^^^^^ slippery
>> >> making judgements about other meeting announcements:
>> Its unclear why anyone has to make any judgments. Simple announcments
>> that offer opportunities for discussion don't seem to threaten the
>> integrity of the reflector.
>>
>>
>> >> 1. Is it explicitly clear that the meeting isn't WG or SG
>> sacntiones?
>> sanctions
>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>> Using a standard terminology eliminates this problem, so this is solved.
>> As noted previously, such future meetings will be called:
>> "Adhoc on Residential Ethernet"
>>
>>
>> >> 2. Does the meeting meet IEEE requirements for openness (e.g., not
>> an
>> >> announcement of an "XYZ Alliance meeting)?
>> Doesn't matter, since its not an official IEEE meeting.
>>
>> I prefer to be as open as possible.
>> Some big companies prefer to work only between themselves.
>> I see little harm in encouraging both between-meeting alternatives.
>>
>>
>> >> 3. Is the meeting announcment in all other ways consistent with
>> IEEE
>> >> requirements and with our published reflector policy?
>> There didn't seem to be any conflicts with the "published reflector
>> policy".
>> Can you identify any conflicts that you might have observed? In the
>> absence
>> of a specific identified concern, its difficult to resolve your
>> concerns.
>>
>> I suspect this would be a good topic to place on the LMSC agenda?
>> As a member, could you enter this one the agenda?
>> Procom is also meeting in Atlanta, if that option is preferred.
>>
>> DVJ
>>
>> David V. James
>> dvj@alum.mit.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG
>> >> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Grow, Bob
>> >> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:38 AM
>> >> To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> >> Subject: Re: [RE] Monday RE discussion announcement
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Colleagues:
>> >>
>> >> My point was that this should not be called an "802.3 RE Study Group
>> ad
>> >> hoc meeting". If you want to call it an ad hoc on residential
>> Ethernet
>> >> that is your perogative. As Chair though I attempt to make sure we
>> are
>> >> following the rules. If this were a study group meeting it has to be
>> >> properly called per our rules. It is not anyone's perogative to in
>> any
>> >> way indicate that an informal gathering of people is an 802.3 or RE
>> >> Study Group sanctioned meeting, which is implied by the title given
>> and
>> >> reinforced by the use of the RESG reflector.
>> >>
>> >> Personally (Bob Grow, not the Chair of 802.3), I think using the
>> study
>> >> group reflector for this kind of thing puts the group on a slipery
>> >> slope, because you then have to start making judgements about other
>> >> meeting announcements:
>> >> 1. Is it explicitly clear that the meeting isn't WG or SG
>> sacntiones?
>> >> 2. Does the meeting meet IEEE requirements for openness (e.g., not
>> an
>> >> announcement of an "XYZ Alliance meeting)?
>> >> 3. Is the meeting announcment in all other ways consistent with
>> IEEE
>> >> requirements and with our published reflector policy?
>> >>
>> >> --Bob
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]
>> >> On Behalf Of Shvodian William-r63101
>> >> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 7:20 AM
>> >> To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> >> Subject: Re: [RE] Monday RE discussion announcement
>> >>
>> >> David, The 802.3 task force meeting requirements are documented in
>> the
>> >> 802.3 rules:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.ieee802.org/3/rules/index.html
>> >>
>> >> 3.4.3 Task Force Chair's Responsibilities
>> >> The main responsibility of the TF Chair is to ensure the production,
>> and
>> >> to guide through the approval and publication process, a draft
>> standard,
>> >> recommended practice or guideline, or revision to an existing
>> document
>> >> as defined by the relevant PAR. The responsibilities include:
>> >>
>> >> a)Call meetings and issue a notice and agenda for each meeting at
>> least
>> >> 30 days prior to the meeting.
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> Study groups have the same basic rules:
>> >>
>> >> 4.4 Study Group Operation
>> >> Study groups follow the operating procedures for Task Forces
>> specified
>> >> above with the following exceptions detailed below.
>> >>
>> >> I would suggest calling this an "unofficial RE meeting" to be safe
>> for
>> >> now, but in the future 30 days notice would be best for any meetings.
>> >>
>> >> Bill
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]
>> >> On Behalf Of David V James
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:19 PM
>> >> To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> >> Subject: Re: [RE] Monday RE discussion announcement
>> >>
>> >> Bob,
>> >>
>> >> I'm a bit confused. My assumption (from 802.17 experience) is that an
>> >> adhoc is just that: an adhoc group of people meeting for whatever
>> >> purpose they desire. In that environment, there was no formal
>> >> requirement to obtain permissions.
>> >>
>> >> From what I gather, 802.3 has a more formal definition of "adhoc".
>> >> Both appear to be consistent with m-w.com:
>> >> adhoc : for the particular end or case at hand without
>> >> consideration of wider application
>> >>
>> >> To avoid future abuses of the 802.3 specific definition, can you
>> provide
>> >> a URL to rules/procedures that describe the use of "adhoc"
>> >> within 802.3?
>> >>
>> >> Any preferences on the following wording alternatives? I would like
>> to
>> >> include the term RE, as that is the subject of the meeting, without
>> >> implying the meeting is RE sanctioned.
>> >>
>> >> informal RE meeting
>> >> RE rendezvous
>> >> nonbinding RE meeting
>> >> nonbinding RE get-together
>> >> RE discussion meeting
>> >> RE get-together
>> >>
>> >> Before I send the correcting meeting announcement, I would like to
>> have
>> >> advice on which wording is "safe". If these appear to have problems,
>> >> alternatives would be appreciated.
>> >>
>> >> Appreciation in advance,
>> >> DVJ
>> >>
>> >> David V. James
>> >> 3180 South Ct
>> >> Palo Alto, CA 94306
>> >> Home: +1.650.494.0926
>> >> +1.650.856.9801
>> >> Cell: +1.650.954.6906
>> >> Fax: +1.360.242.5508
>> >> Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG
>> >> >> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Grow, Bob
>> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:44 PM
>> >> >> To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> >> >> Subject: Re: [RE] Monday RE adhoc meeting announcement
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Colleagues:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is not appropriate to call this meeting an RE adhoc. It has no
>> >> >> status as an authorized 802.3 activity. IEEE 802.3 rules do allow
>> a
>> >> >> Chair to call a meeting with 30 day notice. This activity does
>> not
>> >> >> meet these requirements either in notice period or the party
>> calling
>> >> >> the meeting. Ad hocs are chartered by the SG or its officers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We do encourage people to generate concensus outside 802.3
>> meetings,
>> >> >> but DO NOT represent this as an RESG ad hoc meeting.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bob Grow
>> >> >> Chair, IEEE 802.3
>> >> >> bob.grow@ieee.org
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> From: owner-stds-802-3-re@ieee.org
>> >> >> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@ieee.org]
>> >> >> On Behalf Of David V James
>> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:10 PM
>> >> >> To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
>> >> >> Subject: [RE] Monday RE adhoc meeting announcement
>> >> >>
>> >> >> All,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Tom Dineen has proposed the following agenda for a between meeting
>> >> >> adhoc, which I have volunteered to host:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Monday, 2005Feb28
>> >> >> 802.3 RE Study Group adhoc meeting
>> >> >> 3180 South Court, Palo Alto, CA
>> >> >>
>> >> >> From my perspective, the intent is to help focus between meeting
>> >> >> activities, but not to make decisions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> By working on details between meetings, (hopefully) the valuable
>> >> >> meeting time can be used more efficiently.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> At Tom's request, I will be hosting the meeting at my residence,
>> >> >> which is easy to reserve on short notice.
>> >> >> The date is:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The meeting schedule is as follows:
>> >> >> 12:30 - 13:00 PST Hamburgers for the attendees
>> >> >> 13:00 - 17:00 PST Meeting discussions
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please contact me (by Friday) if you wish to have teleconferencing
>> >> >> facilities, which I will then arrange call-in facilities based on
>> the
>> >> >> number RSVPs.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A door prize will be given to one of those attending, who can also
>> >> >> answer the riddle of:
>> >> >> 1) Which of "South" or "Court" can be abbreviated?
>> >> >> 2) Why?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> DVJ
>> >> >>
>> >> >> David V. James
>> >> >> 3180 South Ct
>> >> >> Palo Alto, CA 94306
>> >> >> Home: +1.650.494.0926
>> >> >> +1.650.856.9801
>> >> >> Cell: +1.650.954.6906
>> >> >> Fax: +1.360.242.5508
>> >> >> Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> >> From: Thomas Dineen [mailto:tdineen@ix.netcom.com]
>> >> >> >> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 4:30 PM
>> >> >> >> To: Thomas Dineen
>> >> >> >> Cc: Michael D. Johas Teener; David James; Tom Mathey, Gail
>> McCoy;
>> >> >> George
>> >> >> >> Claseman
>> >> >> >> Subject: Draft Agenda For Meeting
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Gentlemen:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Please note this is just a draft and not met to be in any
>> way
>> >> >> >> exclusionary. Feel free to suggest additional items.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Lets consider starting the meeting at 1:00 PM, working
>> through
>> >> >> >> early evening, and then adjourning to Fish Market for Beer and
>> >> >> >> Dinner?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Also feel free to expand the email scope of invitees.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 1) Review Of Draft Presentations
>> >> >> >> - Subscription Protocol
>> >> >> >> - Time Distribution Protocol
>> >> >> >> - Queuing Protocol
>> >> >> >> -Others?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 2) Review Of Terminology
>> >> >> >> - Presentations?
>> >> >> >> - Issues?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 3) Review Of Architecture Proposals
>> >> >> >> - Presentations? Anyone?
>> >> >> >> - Discussion Of Architectural Concepts from any and all
>> >> >> attendees.
>> >> >> >> - I will attempt to capture the various concepts in a
>> >> >> presentation
>> >> >> >> of the various competing Ideas.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 4) Discussion of the 802.3 versus 802.1 work split.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 5) Other Issues?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Thomas Dineen
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>