[802SEC] Reaffirmation of 802.10
The IEEE-SA rules don't require you to reactive a working group
in order to run a reaffirmation. Reaffirmation ballots are a
function of the sponsoring committee (the LMSC) rather than the
working group that wrote the standard. I can't find anything
specific to the subject of reaffirmation ballots in the LMSC
P&P, so the SA rules prevail.
You can safely form a reaffirmation ballot pool and conduct a
reaffirmation of 802.10 without thawing out the 802.10 WG. If
the results of the reaffirmation indicate that a revision project
should be undertaken, you can present that information to the SEC
as a possible justification for reanimating the working group.
As to the urgency question, I would not dawdle. RevCom has
gotten very aggressive in conducting the "5 year review" of
standards. RevCom expects the sponsor to provide a crisp answer
as to whether a standard should be reaffirmed or withdrawn at
the 5 year point. Given the recent *debacle* with the reaffirmation
of 802.11, I suggest that you get up to speed on the reaffirmation
ballot process, and strive to conduct a nice, clean reaffirmation
of 802.10, unless you want it to be withdrawn.
Howard
Ken Alonge wrote:
> Tony-
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, since the .10 Standards are up for re-affirmation this
> year, we can't wait until the LinkSec SG completes its work. From my
> participation in the SG meetings at the March plenary and in the weekly
> conference calls, as far as I can tell, the LinkSec SG is at least 6
> months (if not longer) away from deciding on a direction to pursue with
> regard to a security solution. I can almost guarantee from the
> discussions that I've participated in that at least the Secure Data
> Exchange (SDE) protocol portion of the .10 Standards will satisfy most
> (if not all) the security needs of 802 that have been espoused thus
> far. Therefore, if we wait until the LinkSec SG completes its analyses
> to move to revise SDE, the .10 Standards will have automatically been
> withdrawn. If the revision motion is approved at the July plenary, the
> updates to SDE will be complete by the time the SG finishes its
> anlalyses, which I'm certain will show that the modified SDE is the
> right choice for 802 security.
>
>
>
> Ken
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Tony Jeffree <mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk>
>
> To: Ken Alonge <mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net>
>
> Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org <mailto:stds-802-sec@ieee.org> ;
> housley@vigilsec.com <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>
>
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 5:23 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG
> Membership
>
>
> Ken -
>
> I don't believe that you are considered to be a SG until such a time
> as you are defined to be one. Right now, you are a hibernating WG.
>
> Since a large part of the rationale for revising 802.10 that you
> presented in March was your view that a revised 802.10 would serve
> the needs of the Link Sec study group, I believe the appropriate
> course of action would be for any such PAR to be developed within
> the Link Sec SG. Right now, the SG has yet to determine whether or
> not 802.10 will play a part in whatever mechanisms they decide to use.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 19:23 12/04/2003 -0400, Ken Alonge wrote:
>
>> Mat-
>>
>> I guess .10 is the exception again, since the hibernating members
>> of .10 are developing a PAR and 5 criteria for the revision to
>> IEEE Std 802.10-1998. Since we are doing this work, are we
>> considered a Study Group? Under the current definition of an SG,
>> I don't believe so. But who is better qualified to develop the
>> PAR and 5 Criteria for revision of a Standard than the hibernating
>> working group members? I would like to hear from some of the
>> other Exec members on this, since I plan to submit the PAR for
>> approval by the Exec at the July plenary.
>>
>> Thanks - Ken
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: mjsherman@research.att.com
>> <mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com> To:
>> kenneth.alonge@verizon.net <mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net>
>> ; stds-802-sec@ieee.org <mailto:stds-802-sec@ieee.org> Cc:
>> housley@vigilsec.com <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com> Sent:
>> Friday, April 11, 2003 5:10 PM Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC
>> P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
>>
>> Ken,
>>
>> It was 20 cents well spent. But to be clear, a new WG can
>> evolve from ANY study group - and EC SG or a WG SG. The point
>> is that some sort of work (a PAR) should be developed for the
>> new WG before it pops into existence. PAR's (again I could be
>> wrong) are developed normally in Study Groups. I don't know
>> of any exceptions to this these days. So I believe a Study
>> Group should always precede a PAR, and thus a new WG. The
>> same statements would hold for a hibernating WG being brought
>> out of Hibernation.
>>
>> Mat
>>
>> Matthew Sherman Vice Chair, IEEE 802 Technology Consultant
>> Communications Technology Research AT&T Labs - Shannon
>> Laboratory Room B255, Building 103 180 Park Avenue P.O. Box
>> 971 Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925 Fax:
>> +1 (973) 360-5877 EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com -----Original
>> Message----- From: Ken Alonge
>> [mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, April 11,
>> 2003 4:01 PM To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew);
>> stds-802-sec@ieee.org Cc: housley@vigilsec.com Subject: Re:
>> [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
>>
>> Mat-
>>
>> The main difference that I see is that .10 was not formed
>> from an EC study group and, therefore, the members wouldn't
>> have built up voting rights credits. So, in order to handle a
>> similar situation in the future (if one ever expects a similar
>> situation to ever occur again) voting rights would have to be
>> granted to all who attend the first meeting of the WG, so they
>> could elect officers and begin voting on issues related to
>> their work. This is the model that could/should be used for
>> un-hibernating a working group, as well. If the "unwritten"
>> model within 802 forevermore is that all new WGs will ONLY
>> come from ECSGs, then the rules changes being proposed will
>> work, but I believe that this is a very shortsighted position.
>>
>> Looks like we're back to my original e-mail on the topic,
>> and my two cents wound up to be 20 cents. Sorry to belabor
>> the point.
>>
>> Ken ----- Original Message ----- From:
>> mjsherman@research.att.com <mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com>
>> To: kenneth.alonge@verizon.net
>> <mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net> ; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>> <mailto:stds-802-sec@ieee.org> Cc: housley@vigilsec.com
>> <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003
>> 4:42 PM Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++
>> Ballot on WG Membership
>>
>> Ken,
>>
>> I very much appreciate the history. It sounds to me that
>> your group had a relatively typical evolution. I don't think
>> what happened is incompatible with the rules we are suggesting
>> for today.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Mat
>>
>> Matthew Sherman Vice Chair, IEEE 802 Technology Consultant
>> Communications Technology Research AT&T Labs - Shannon
>> Laboratory Room B255, Building 103 180 Park Avenue P.O. Box
>> 971 Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925 Fax:
>> +1 (973) 360-5877 EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>> <mailto:mjsherman@att.com> -----Original Message----- From:
>> Ken Alonge [mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net] Sent: Friday,
>> April 11, 2003 1:35 PM To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org;
>> Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew) Cc: Russ Housley Subject: Re:
>> [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
>>
>> Mat-
>>
>> I dug out the old minutes from the very first meetings of
>> .10. Kim was the drafter of the PAR, which was reviewed and
>> approved by attendees of the pre-802.10 WG meetings. The PAR
>> was approved by the Exec during the July 1988 plenary meeting,
>> which was the 4th meeting of the group that ultimately became
>> 802.10. The minutes from the 6th meeting, which is the 3rd
>> meeting as 802.10, indicate that all attendees at meetings 4 &
>> 5 had immediate voting rights. They numbered about 25. The
>> attendees list from the subsequent 4 meetings (meetings 6-10)
>> indicate that most (90%) of the original members who were
>> granted voting rights continued to attend and made
>> contributions to the development of the Standard. In
>> actuality, the voting membership grew to about 30 over the
>> next few meetings. Kim was there from day 1 of the group,
>> even before it became 802.10.
>>
>> By the way, .10 was formed from the membership of and was
>> sponsored by not only the TC on Security and Privacy (as I
>> stated previously), but also the TC on Computer
>> Communications. There was quite a diverse membership from the
>> standpoint of industry, government, and academia
>> representatives, as well as their expertise in networking and
>> security.
>>
>> Ken ----- Original Message ----- From:
>> mjsherman@research.att.com <mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com>
>> To: kenneth.alonge@verizon.net
>> <mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net> ; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>> <mailto:stds-802-sec@ieee.org> ; tony@jeffree.co.uk
>> <mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 10:34
>> AM Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++
>> Ballot on WG Membership
>>
>> Ken,
>>
>> What you describe sounds very much like an informal version
>> of what I would normally expect to do today. If I understand
>> you correctly (correct me if I don't) the sequence was:
>>
>> Informal discussion outside and within 802 Plenary 1:
>> Present proposal need for new work item to EC and tutorial to
>> membership Plenary 2: Present PAR to EC. Approve PAR. Approve
>> WG with acting chair Plenary 3: First WG meeting. Have
>> elections.
>>
>> Today I think the sequence would have run:
>>
>> Plenary 1: Present proposal for new work, tutorial to
>> membership, form SG to write PAR Plenary 2: Present and
>> approve PAR. Approve WG with acting chair Plenary 3: First WG
>> meeting. Have elections.
>>
>> So I don't think things are so different. To me the more
>> important questions are:
>>
>> Did the original leadership of 802.10 (Kimberly for
>> instance) participate in the PAR development? Was the first
>> WG meeting Kimberly's first meeting?
>>
>> How many showed up for that first meeting? Of those that
>> showed up, how many became regular members vs just showing up
>> to say they have voting rights? How many of those at the
>> first meeting participated in the PAR development? Were the
>> one that stayed on in the group the ones that helped develop
>> the PAR, or the ones who showed up for the first time at the
>> first meeting?
>>
>> I think these are the questions that are most relevant. I
>> think that today it is a given that we would not start a new
>> WG without first having a draft PAR in mind for them to work
>> on. Personally, I would prefer a slightly extended SG process
>> to give people more time to acclimate. I would have preferred
>> a process more like:
>>
>> Plenary 1: Present proposal for new work to EC, form SG
>> Plenary 2: Present draft PAR and Tutorial to 802 membership
>> Plenary 3: Approve PAR, approve new WG Plenary 4: First WG
>> meeting. Have elections.
>>
>> But I recognize this might be impeding progress more that
>> people would like, so I doubt I would ever mandate a 3 Plenary
>> approval process. Just my thoughts.
>>
>> Mat
>>
>>
>>
>> Matthew Sherman Vice Chair, IEEE 802 Technology Consultant
>> Communications Technology Research AT&T Labs - Shannon
>> Laboratory Room B255, Building 103 180 Park Avenue P.O. Box
>> 971 Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925 Fax:
>> +1 (973) 360-5877 EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com -----Original
>> Message----- From: Ken Alonge
>> [mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, April 11,
>> 2003 8:24 AM To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org; Tony Jeffree Subject:
>> Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG
>> Membership
>>
>> Mat/Tony-
>>
>> My recollection of what happened in the formation of .10 in
>> the Wild Wild West days was that a group of security engineers
>> who were members of the Technical Committee on Security and
>> Privacy (not sure if I've got the name exactly right)
>> determined that there was a significant need for security in
>> 802 LANs. A few of those engineers put together a tutorial,
>> which was presented at an 802 plenary meeting (sometime in the
>> 1987-88 timeframe). Based on that tutorial and some
>> discussion with members of the Exec, who agreed that secuirty
>> should be provided for 802 LANs, a PAR was developed by the
>> founders of .10 and submitted to the Exec for approval at the
>> next plenary. The rest is history. All attendees at the
>> first meeting of .10 immediately got voting rights (I
>> unfortunately did not attend that first meeting, so I had to
>> earn mine through the usual process). The original .10 Chair
>> (Kimberly Kirkpatrick) was granted Exec voting rights at the
>> next plenary -- she had no previous 802 experience, but was
>> mentored by the other Chairs. When I took over from Kim in
>> 1992 after she became seriously ill, I also had no experience
>> in running an 802 Working Group (or even a study group for
>> that matter), but I too was mentored by the other Chairs. As
>> I recall, there were also some tutorials offered by the IEEE
>> Staff on "How to be a Good Chair" - my own made up title for
>> this. These were very helpful in learing the processes.
>>
>> Obviously, things change over time (sometimes for the
>> better), but I hope we don't ignore the successes of the
>> past. I firmly believe that there should be a well worded
>> process for forming new Working Groups in any revision of the
>> P&P, which is flexible enough to accommodate formation of a
>> Working Group directly from an outside body of expertise that
>> doesn't have to become a Study Group, which is spun off from
>> another 802 Working Group first.
>>
>> Also, at some point (hopefully soon) the issue of
>> un-hibernating a Working Group needs to be addressed, because
>> I will be presenting a PAR to the Exec before the next plenary
>> for revisions to IEEE Std 802.10-1998.
>>
>> Ken ----- Original Message ----- From: Tony Jeffree
>> <mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk> To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>> <mailto:stds-802-sec@ieee.org> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003
>> 5:10 AM Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++
>> Ballot on WG Membership
>>
>> Mat/Ken -
>>
>> If my memory serves me correctly, the concept of Study Groups
>> post-dates the formation of 802.10. At the time .10 was
>> formed, the formation of new WGs was simply a result of the
>> SEC waving its collective magic wand. As such, the 802.10 case
>> doesn't shed any light whatsoever on current P&P or operating
>> practice.
>>
>> I believe the intent of the current 802 rules, particularly
>> 5.3, is that a future new WG would not come into being without
>> a Study Group first developing a PAR for its work and the SEC
>> making a decision as to where that PAR would be placed. The
>> wording in the rules could benefit from making that a more
>> explicit requirement, but the intent is nonetheless clear. So
>> we're not talking unwritten rules here; badly written rules,
>> perhaps, but written nonetheless.
>>
>> My personal view is that the same principle must apply to
>> hibernating WGs - i.e., that they cannot be magically
>> un-hibernated by a waving of the SEC magic wand without the
>> pre-cursor of establishing a Study Group to define a PAR for
>> the work that they might do.
>>
>> Regards, Tony
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 23:19 10/04/2003 -0400, mjsherman@research.att.com wrote:
>> Ken, So I guess the first question is where do Working Groups
>> come from? My own opinion is that our rules are somewhat
>> lacking in terms of a process by which WG s are formed. For
>> that matter, they are equally lacking in terms of the process
>> followed to restart a WG. Off hand it appears that they
>> simply pop into existence by a vote of the EC. But for sure
>> Working Groups should only exist if they have at least one
>> assigned task to do. Normally we say a WG without an active
>> PAR goes into Hibernation. However if we look at SA Standards
>> Board Operations Manual we find: 5.2 Project authorization No
>> formal activity shall take place after six months from the day
>> of the first meeting of the working group without formal
>> submittal of a PAR to the IEEE-SA Standards Board and
>> assignment of a project number (see 5.1.2). 6.1.1 Project
>> Authorization Request (PAR) As part of the initial PAR
>> procedure, the committee or working group shall appoint a
>> chair (or official reporter) who shall sign a Copyright
>> Agreement acknowledging that the proposed standard constitutes
>> a work made for hire as defined by the Copyright Act, and that
>> as to any work not so defined, any rights or interest in the
>> copyright to the standards publication is transferred to the
>> IEEE. So clearly their intent is that the WG comes before the
>> PAR. This presents a bit of a chicken and egg problem. In my
>> recollection within 802, the only way a PAR comes into
>> existence these days is by first having a Study Group study
>> the matter. If that SG develops a draft PAR, and the EC
>> determines a new WG is needed to pursue that PAR, POP the WG
>> comes into existence. In my mind the SG plays the role of the
>> pre-PAR WG. I don t believe the SA is cognizant of SG s or
>> gives them any status. These seem to be an 802 unique thing
>> (though I could be wrong). However, I would not normally
>> expect a WG to come into existence without first a debate as
>> to where the work belongs, and an EC SG to at least determine
>> if the work is appropriate for 802. Apparently none of these
>> steps occurred for 802.10, which surprises me. I guess there
>> could be such strong consensus when the issue was first raised
>> to the EC that there was no need for an EC level SG, and the
>> WG could simply pop into existence. My own preference would
>> be that a WG not come into existence until at least one PAR
>> has been well defined for it to work on. However, if a WG
>> were to pop into existence without a PAR, I would hope that
>> except for electing officers, they would initially operate in
>> SG mode to develop a PAR, since they can t exist for long
>> without one. And I would hope that all the members of the WG
>> were members of the SG, or else why would they be there? Can
>> their be a Task Group without a PAR? Near as I can tell our
>> rules don t really deal with Task Groups either. So frankly,
>> I am confused. Could you provide more details on the formation
>> of 802.10? How did you get to your first PAR? Thanks, Mat
>> Matthew Sherman Vice Chair, IEEE 802 Technology Consultant
>> Communications Technology Research AT&T Labs - Shannon
>> Laboratory Room B255, Building 103 180 Park Avenue P.O. Box
>> 971 Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925 Fax:
>> +1 (973) 360-5877 EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com -----Original
>> Message----- From: Ken Alonge
>> [mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, April 10,
>> 2003 2:10 PM To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew);
>> bob@airespace.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org Subject: Re: [802SEC]
>> +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
>>
>> Hi All-
>>
>> I'd like to throw my 2 cents in here and stir the pot a
>> little more. In Mat's second paragraph below, he alludes to a
>> Working Group evolving from a Study Group (which happens to be
>> the method by which WGs have come into existence in the recent
>> past) and that a WG doesn't pop into existence. In fact,
>> 802.10 did not evolve from a SG -- it "popped" into existence
>> from work that began outside 802. At the very first meeting
>> of .10 everyone that attended was granted voting rights, and
>> the Chair (who had not previously participated in 802) had
>> Exec voting rights at the next Plenary. Is it the expectation
>> that this will NEVER happen again in 802?
>>
>> Unless there is an "unwritten rule" that everyone on the
>> current Exec knows (except me, since I haven't been around in
>> a while) that ALL new WGs will ONLY come from SGs that have
>> been spun off from existing WGs (and therefore people have
>> been building up credits toward voting rights in the manner
>> specified in the P&P), then I think the Exec needs to keep the
>> current practice of awarding membership to all who attend the
>> first meeting of a new WG. (Sorry for the run-on paragraph.)
>> If this is really the case, then I think there may be some
>> shortsightedness on the part of the Exec, as to where new 802
>> projects might come from.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: mjsherman@research.att.com
>> <mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com> To: bob@airespace.com
>> <mailto:bob@airespace.com> ; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>> <mailto:stds-802-sec@ieee.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003
>> 11:42 PM Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot
>> +++ Ballot on WG Membership
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> I think you at least partially misunderstand my intent in the
>> changes I proposed. Your arguments seem to focus strongly on
>> the officers of the group, and not the general membership. So
>> let me ask you this. Why do we have the 3 session rule that
>> normally applies to achieving membership? If one meeting is
>> enough for anyone to follow what is going on technically, and
>> understand the procedures in place, why don t we just let
>> every expert act as a member the moment they walk in the door?
>>
>> A WG is not a virtual particle popping in and out of a
>> vacuum. On day one, it has a context that it evolved in and
>> is continuing to evolve in. That context is the Study Group
>> it evolved from, and 802 itself. To properly participate even
>> in an election, I believe participants need to have a solid
>> sense of what they are there to do, and how it is normally
>> done. Not to mention some level of familiarity with the
>> candidates. I don t think one meeting or even one session is
>> enough. And I don t think the creators of the 3 session rule
>> did either. While the EC may be able to mentor the leadership
>> of a new WG, I don t think they can effectively mentor the
>> membership itself if it is completely green along with the
>> leadership.
>>
>> I firmly believe that the creators of the first meeting rule
>> chose to let everyone in because it was convenient and easy to
>> do the book keeping. I am sure they saw the potential flaws,
>> but presumed those potentials were generally remote and could
>> be neglected. They probably did not believe these remote
>> possibilities justified the inclusion of a more complex
>> initial membership process. I think we now see that those
>> potentials are larger than may have originally been
>> anticipated. I for one now see a need for a more complex
>> start up process which better preserves the intent of the 3
>> session rule for gaining membership. So again I ask, in your
>> mind why have the 3 session rule if 3 sessions are not
>> required to participate intelligently in a group?
>>
>> Mat
>>
>> Matthew Sherman Vice Chair, IEEE 802 Technology Consultant
>> Communications Technology Research AT&T Labs - Shannon
>> Laboratory Room B255, Building 103 180 Park Avenue P.O. Box
>> 971 Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925 Fax:
>> +1 (973) 360-5877 EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com -----Original
>> Message----- From: Bob O'Hara [mailto:bob@airespace.com] Sent:
>> Wednesday, April 09, 2003 1:30 PM To: Sherman,Matthew J
>> (Matthew); stds-802-sec@ieee.org Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++
>> LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
>>
>> Mat,
>>
>> I vote DISAPPROVE on this ballot.
>>
>> I believe that including any criterion related to experience
>> with LMSC, its working groups, or study groups as a
>> prerequisite to holding office is a path to constant judgment
>> calls by the SEC as to how much experience is enough, what
>> experience is relevant, and how recent that experience must
>> be. So, must an officer candidate hold a working group office
>> prior to running a study group, in order to be qualified?
>> Which positions? How long? If we are going to require an
>> experience criterion to be met, I want it to be explicit,
>> concrete, and measurable. It must NOT be subject to
>> interpretation. Given that the current proposed change lacks
>> this specificity: In 5.1.3.1 delete: "In no case should a
>> person who is not a member in good standing of IEEE 802 by the
>> end of the first session of establishment of a WG be
>> considered to Chair a WG, as they are unlikely to have
>> sufficient familiarity with the Policies and Procedures of
>> IEEE 802, as well as the IEEE 802 Standards Association
>> (IEEE-SA), and IEEE Computer Society." and replace it with:
>> "Candidates for the positions of working group chair and vice
>> chair(s) shall be members of the working group."
>>
>> I believe that the SEC has the obligation to mentor the
>> officers that are chosen by the working groups. It is the
>> membership of the working group that is best situated to
>> evaluate the qualifications of its leadership. The SEC, at
>> best, is second guessing the working group decisions. I also
>> don't agree with the substitution of study group participation
>> for credit toward working group membership. This is a hack to
>> try to give preference to study group participants, on the
>> theory that they have more "experience" with 802 by having
>> attended a study group meeting or two and, thus, would make
>> better officers. Or, possibly, this is a misguided attempt to
>> prevent "loading" the membership at the first meeting and
>> electing a slate that is "distasteful" to some constituency.
>> This is unsubstantiated. The nature of the work of a study
>> group and a working group is fundamentally different. The
>> task of a study group is basically administrative and
>> marketing, to get a PAR and 5 criteria document approved. The
>> task of a working group (at least initially) is mostly
>> technical, evaluating technical proposals and writing a
>> standard. The types and numbers of people that would attend
>> the study group and working group meetings can be expected to
>> be quite different. Why should the working group members have
>> their choices of officer candidates limited to those that
>> chose to perform the administrative and marketing tasks of a
>> study group, when the character of the work changes
>> dramatically at the formation of the working group? In 5.1.3.1
>> reverse the deletion of the first sentence of this clause
>> (i.e., put it back). This is clear and concise. The deletion
>> is completely ineffective, since all one has to do at the
>> first meeting is present a letter of intention to participate
>> to the chair, in order to gain instant membership according to
>> the sentence that is proposed to start 5.1.3.1. Also delete
>> the first two sentences in the second paragraph. -Bob
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: mjsherman@research.att.com
>> [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27,
>> 2003 8:31 PM To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org Subject: [802SEC] +++
>> LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership Dear EC
>> members,
>>
>> Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision
>> ballot on WG Membership. This ballot was approved at the
>> Friday March 14, 2003 plenary session. It is identical to
>> what was presented at the Plenary session except that per the
>> minutes of that meeting I have change the Section number
>> 1.1.1.1 to 5.1.3.1. The purpose and rationale for the ballot
>> are as given in the attached document. Ballot Opens: March
>> 27, 2003
>>
>> Ballot Closes: April 28, 2003 11:59 PM
>>
>> WG chairs, if you haven't already done so, please invite your
>> WG members to comment through you. Buzz, please ensure this
>> gets sent to the "802ALL" email list as well. While I
>> encourage discussion on the reflector, I am trying something
>> new this time, and have included a ballot response / comment
>> form. Prior to the close of the ballot, please fill out the
>> attached form with your vote and a summary of your comments.
>> Then send it to the reflector. I will accept updated forms
>> until the close of the ballot. I m also open to comments on
>> how this process works. Hopefully this will make it easier
>> for me to compile and distribute comments, and not much more
>> difficult for everyone else. If it doesn t work, we will fall
>> back to the old process the next round of ballots.
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>>
>> Mat
>>
>> Matthew Sherman
>>
>> Vice Chair, IEEE 802
>>
>> Technology Consultant
>>
>> Communications Technology Research AT&T Labs - Shannon
>> Laboratory Room B255, Building 103 180 Park Avenue P.O. Box
>> 971 Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925 Fax:
>> +1 (973) 360-5877 EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>>
>> Regards, Tony
>>
> Regards,
> Tony
>