Re: advocating 802 positions to Standards Board
[Notice that I changed the subject line and deleted the old quoted messages.]
Geoff,
I'm skeptical that a Directed Position would apply at the Standards
Board. I think it's beyond our rules; furthermore, no one on the
Board is there as a representative of 802.
I am thinking more along the lines of something like, "Motion: That
the LMSC encourages the IEEE-SA Standards Board to pass the following
motion: ..." I think that, if we crafted the motion in this way, we
would be unambiguous about what we want. This could help both the
LMSC members and 802's supporters on the Board.
In general, it seems reasonable to me that 802 should take a
leadership role at the Board when it matters to us. In addition to
reviewing standards,the IEEE-SA Standards Board "is responsible on an
Institute-wide basis for encouraging and coordinating the development
of IEEE standards." Some of these issues have to affect us.
A question for the Standards Board members out there: do other groups
play an organized, active role on the Board, or do the members pretty
much act as individuals?
Roger
At 2:44 PM -0700 00/10/11, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>Roger-
>
>There is within 802 the concept of a directed position., See
>"Procedure 8" of the LMSC Operating Rules.
>
>I believe that it would be reasonable to use this same procedure to
>direct those members of LMSC to carry into and initiate a motion at
>the IEEE-SA Standards Board.
>
>The next question is whether it is a good idea and whether it has
>any advantage over less coercive means.
>
>It does get the messenger off the hook for demanding that a vote be
>taken on the motion.
>It does not magically make the vote come out right or guarantee
>heavy lobbying.
>
>It all comes under the category of "Don't ask the question unless
>you are really sure you are willing to hear the answer."
>
>Geoff
>
>
>>Jim's message raises an interesting issue: how would 802 go about
>>getting an item onto the agenda of the IEEE-SA Standards Board?
>>
>>I have heard that a motion related to ISTO was entered at the
>>Standards Board meeting but was not voted upon. If 802 wanted a
>>motion entered and voted upon, what would we do to ensure that
>>result?
>>
>>What about a motion asking the Computer Society Standards Activity
>>Board (SAB) to make a motion? Do they have any status at the
>>Standards Board, or the the Board just a bunch of individuals?
>>
>>Even if the SAB has no status, I suspect that their members may
>>support us if we suggested a specific motion.
>>
>>Roger
>>>To date, IEEE 802 has been very apolitical on the IEEE-SA BOG elections. We
>>>have not individually offered a candidate from IEEE 802 specifically, we
>>>have not lobbied hard for any candidates, and we have stayed out of the IEEE
>>>BOG politics (as it does not immediately affect the things we do best, which
>>>is to write a standard). We do have strong participation from IEEE 802 in
>>>the Standards Board (NesCom, RevCom, Board), because these organizations
>>>directly affect our standards process. We have a very distant relationship
>>>with the Computer Society, which is our sponsor, but hardly mentioned in our
>>>efforts. I also work somewhat with Communications Society, through a
>>>bi-monthly 802 column in Newtork Magazine. But the main efforts of the
>>>leadership is on standards.
>>>
>>>I would rather concentrate on making IEEE 802 a better place to do
>>>standards, improve our own process as needed, than participate in the
>>>"standards arena" politics. Between ANSI initiatives, IEEE-ISTO, IEEE
>>>Corporate Members, TIA activities with Ethernet, there is a lot going on for
>>>anyone who wants to battle here. I have done some of this (more than I
>>>want), in my job as chair of IEEE 802, but view that if IEEE 802 does
>>>timely, high quality public standards, then we will be successful.
>>>
>>>I don't believe we should use our 802ALL reflector for political actions and
>>>supporting candidates - without a specific SEC motion. I do have some
>>>thoughts on how to position IEEE 802 organization better in the future, and
>>>was planning to schedule an hour on Sunday evening after the rules
>>>discussion.
>>>
>>>Jim Carlo(jcarlo@ti.com) Cellular:1-214-693-1776 Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274