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

RE: [802SEC] Results for +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on Executive Committee Title




Buzz / Howard,

Thanks for the inputs.  I guess that leaves it with Paul, as I think he
may have been Vice Chair during that period.

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: Howard Frazier [mailto:millardo@dominetsystems.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:37 PM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Results for +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++
Ballot on Executive Committee Title



I never had the source file for the P&P.
When I was the Recording Secretary, the rules
were maintained by the Vice Chair, just as they
are now.

Howard

Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:

> Matt,  I think Kelly McClellan generated that diagram, and he probably

> passed it on to Howard Frazier at some point. 
> 
>  
> 
> Thanx,  Buzz
> Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> Boeing - SSG
> PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> Seattle, WA  98124-2207
> (425) 865-2443    Fx: (425) 865-6721
> everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 11:18 AM
> To: mjsherman@research.att.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] Results for +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ 
> Ballot on Executive Committee Title
> 
>  
> 
> I have an old 11/98 MS Word copy but the figures are imported in that,

> and don't seem to be editable.
> 
>  
> 
> --Bob Grow
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 7:29 AM
> To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] Results for +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ 
> Ballot on Executive Committee Title
> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
>  
> 
> Does anyone know where the original files are for Figures 1 and in the

> LMSC P&P are?  I need to edit them but can?t find the source files.
> 
>  
> 
> 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: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:06 AM
> To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] Results for +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot
on 
> Executive Committee Title
> 
>  
> 
> Dear EC members,
> 
>  
> 
> First my apologies for not reporting the final results of this ballot 
> sooner.  The ballot failed, mostly due to lack of response.  Below, 
> please find input material for comment resolution on the ballot.  
> Specifically please find the following:
> 
>  
> 
> 1)     Results of ballot
> 
> 2)     Comments received on the ballot
> 
> 3)     Known relevant rules from CS SAB and SA
> 
>  
> 
> As always, please identify any errors or omissions in this material! 
> 
>  
> 
> 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
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>                                    
> 
>  
> 
> Ballot Results ? Closed  5/14/03 11:59 PM EDT
> 
>  
> 
> 00 Paul Nikolich                   DIS                  Comments 
> Received      
> 
> 01 Geoff Thompson                  DIS                  Comments 
> Received    
> 
> 02 Matthew Sherman                                 DNV
> 
> 03 Buzz Rigsbee                                    DNV    
> 
> 04 Bob O'Hara              APR    
> 
> 05 Bill Quackenbush                        ABS          Comments
Received  
> 
> 06 Tony Jeffree            APR
> 
> 07 Bob Grow                                        DNV
> 
> 08 Stuart Kerry                                    DNV
> 
> 09 Bob Heile                                       DNV
> 
> 10 Roger Marks             APR
> 
> 11 Mike Takefman           APR  
> 
> 12 Carl Stevenson          APR                          Comments
Received
> 
> 13 Jim Lansford                                    DNV
> 
> XX Reza Arefi                                           Comments
Received  
> 
>  
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 
>             totals:      5 APR   2 DIS   1 ABS   6 DNV
> 
>  
> 
> 10 APPROVES (2/3 majority) are required to PASS.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Ballot comments:
> 
>  
> 
> Bill Quackenbush [billq@attglobal.net]
Thu 
> 5/15/2003 10:52 PM
> 
>  
> 
> Geoff,
> 
>  
> 
> The long and the short answers are the same, none.
> 
>  
> 
> You can classify my "abstain" vote as whimsical.  I am not ready to
vote
> 
> "approve" as there are some issues I believe need to be resolved.  I
am
> 
> in general agreement with the goal of the proposed change
(consistency),
> 
> but it become unclear, at least to me, as to whether the Exec should
be
> 
> called the Executive Committee (or EC) or the Sponsor Executive
> 
> Committee (or SEC) to agree with IEEE standards terminology.  And so
not
> 
> having a strong negative comment against the proposal I decided to
vote
> 
> "abstain" fully knowing that is was equivalent to a "disapprove".
> 
>  
> 
> I was wondering if someone would ask about my weird vote :-)
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Geoff Thompson 
> [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]                                  Thu 
> 5/15/2003 11:49 AM
> 
>  
> 
> Let's see,
> 
>  
> 
> In mail ballots, abstains go in the denominator along with Approve,
> 
> Disapprove, and DNV
> 
> but they don't go in the numerator.
> 
>  
> 
> So what is the (engineering, not political) difference between this
and a
> 
> disapprove?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Bill Quackenbush [billq@attglobal.net]
Thu 
> 5/15/2003 6:32 AM
> 
>  
> 
> I vote Abstain with the following comments.
> 
>  
> 
>      1) I agree that the reference to the "Executive Committee" should
be
> 
> consistent throughout the P&P.  However, I do not have a strong
> 
> preference as whether that reference should be "EC", "SEC", "Executive
> 
> Committee" or "Sponsor Executive Committee".  I do believe that what
> 
> ever the standard reference is, it should agree with the terminology
for
> 
> an IEEE standards developing committee.
> 
>  
> 
>      2) The use of abreviations is inconsistent in the P&P. "WG" is
used
> 
> only in sections 5.1.5.2.3 and 5.3 and Procedure 2, otherwise "Working
> 
> Group" is used.  "TAG" and "Technical Advisory Group" are both used
> 
> throughout the P&P with no obvious pattern. "SG" is used only in
Section
> 
> 5.3, otherwise "Study Group" is used.  We need a rule on abreviation
use.
> 
>  
> 
>      3) The term "Sponsor Executive Committee" appears in both Figures
1 and
> 
> 2 on page 3.  It would appear that these should be changed to
"Executive
> 
> Committee" to be consistent with the rest of this proposed change.
> 
>  
> 
>      4) "EC" is used without definition in the next to last paragraph
of
> 
> section 2.  "EC" is not defined until section 3.  "EC" should not be
> 
> used before it is defined.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Geoff Thompson 
> [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]                                  Wed 
> 5/14/2003 4:33 PM
> 
>  
> 
> Roger-
> 
>  
> 
> You may be right.
> 
> I need to look into it in terms of documentation.
> 
> My experience has always been (at the IEEE level) that they look to
The
> 
> Sponsor, the person, as being ultimately responsible rather than as a
> 
> representative of a governing body.
> 
>  
> 
> If this is the case then our procedures should be structured so that
our
> 
> leadership organization is recognizable to higher powers, as well as
have
> 
> the structure that we wish it to have.
> 
>  
> 
> That's all. No ulterior motive, just want the system to be able to
hold up
> 
> under stress should it ever arrive.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Roger B. Marks [r.b.marks@ieee.org]                               Wed 
> 5/14/2003 2:25 PM
> 
>  
> 
> Geoff,
> 
>  
> 
> Can you explain what you mean when you say that the Computer Society
> 
> and IEEE-SA "don't recognize anything other than 'Sponsor', the
> 
> person (Nikolich)"? My understanding is that the sponsor of 802
> 
> standards projects is the LMSC, not the LMSC Chair.
> 
>  
> 
> The IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws (5.2.2) says "Sponsors of IEEE
> 
> standards projects are committees" and provides a lot more detail.
> 
>  
> 
> The RevCom submittal form asks the question:
> 
>      "4. SPONSOR (Full name of society/committee)"
> 
>  
> 
> The PAR form asks:
> 
>      "Name of Sponsoring Society and Committee"
> 
>  
> 
> So I think that the Sponsor is not a person.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Geoff Thompson 
> [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]                                  Wed 
> 5/14/2003 1:48 PM
> 
>  
> 
> I support the Nikolich comment regarding the introduction of yet
another 
> new term "EC" (In my mind, the term "EC" is stuck at the name for 
> "Educational Comics", the original name of the entity that published
MAD 
> Comix/Magazine)
> 
> Further, I am uncertain that the shuffling that this does reflects the

> actual organization that is required of us by the Computer Society and

> IEEE-SA. It is my understanding that they don't recognize anything
other 
> than "Sponsor", the person (Nikolich). This fact (or lack thereof)
needs 
> to be explained in all of this.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Paul Nikolich [paul.nikolich@att.net]

> Sat 5/10/2003 2:08 PM
> 
>  
> 
> Comment:  It is not necessary to introduce the acronym 'EC' into the 
> document.  'Executive Committee' should be spelled out in full whever
it 
> is used.  If the acronym 'EC' is replaced by 'Executive Committee' in 
> the document, I will change my vote to APPROVE.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) 
> [carlstevenson@agere.com]                             Wed 5/7/2003
4:56 AM
> 
>  
> 
> Approve with a comment - make sure that the TAG rules change text
contains
> 
> all of the updates as it is incorporated.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Reza Arefi [reza@arraycomm.com]                                   Mon 
> 4/14/2003 1:26 PM
> 
>  
> 
> Figure 1 and Figure 2 also need to be modified to reflect the change.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Relevant material in CS SAB P&P:
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
>       3.1 Abbreviations
> 
> CSSC: CS Standards Committees, i.e. SAB, Sponsors, WGs, SGs
> 
>  SEC: Sponsor Executive Committee
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
>       3.2 Definitions
> 
> Sponsor: A group of individuals who have a professed interest in the 
> development of standards (either by direct participation or by the 
> process of review) In technological areas that fall under the general 
> scope of interest of the Computer Society.
> 
> Sponsor Balloting Body: Eligible IEEE or CS-affiliate members, SA 
> members, invited experts, ORs, and Organizational Entities who have 
> returned a properly completed Invitation to Ballot within the 
> established deadline, on a specific draft standard.
> 
> Sponsor Executive Committee: A subcommittee of a Sponsor that has been

> delegated certain duties and responsibilities by the Sponsor's P&P.
> 
>  
> 
> 
>       4.1 Overview
> 
> The IEEE standards development process includes two volunteer groups:
a 
> Sponsor, who supervises all phases of the development and maintenance
of 
> a standard, and a standards developing committee such as a WG or SG, 
> which is responsible to the Sponsor, and which develops the draft 
> standard. A draft standard is forwarded to the IEEE Standards Board by

> the Sponsor for action once it has met the IEEE approval criteria.
> 
> The development of standards in the CS is governed by a committee 
> structure comprising the SAB at the highest level, to which report 
> Sponsors. Reporting to these Sponsors are WGs which may be responsible

> for one or more standards projects [large Sponsors, e.g. those with
more 
> than 10 WGs, may choose to form Steering Committees responsible for a 
> number WGs with closely related scope and interests]. In turn, WGs may

> choose to form subcommittees to deal with specific issues, such as a 
> particular document, or a chapter in a document.
> 
> 
>       4.16 Executive Committee
> 
> CSSCs, in their P&Ps, may delegate to a subcommittee the exercise of
any 
> of their rights and responsibilities. However the NHL committee shall 
> look to the CSSC itself, and not to the subsidiary committee, as the 
> responsible committee.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 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: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
> Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 8:21 AM
> To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] Current results for +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++

> Ballot on Executive Committee Title
> 
>  
> 
> Dear EC members,
> 
>  
> 
> Below is the status on the LMSC P&P Revision Ballot on Executive 
> Committee Title.  The ballot closes May 14, 2003 11:59 PM EDT. This is
a 
> few days away. I probably will NOT send out another reminder prior to 
> the end of the ballot since I am tied up at the 802.11 interim this 
> week. Please get in your votes and comments so we can have a
successful 
> comment resolution on this ballot.  (Remember if you do not vote or 
> abstain it is equivalent to a DISAPPROVE vote). Please identify any 
> inaccuracies you detect in my status report. Due to the large number
of 
> rules issues all running at once I am not now taking the time to 
> summarize all the comments to date as I have in the past.  I will 
> generate a summary document and distribute it before comment
resolution 
> on this ballot occurs.
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Mat
> 
>                                    
> 
>  
> 
> Ballot Results and comments as of 5/10/03
> 
>  
> 
> 00 Paul Nikolich                   DIS                  Comments 
> Received      
> 
> 01 Geoff Thompson                                  DNV    
> 
> 02 Matthew Sherman                                 DNV
> 
> 03 Buzz Rigsbee                                    DNV    
> 
> 04 Bob O'Hara              APR    
> 
> 05 Bill Quackenbush                                DNV  
> 
> 06 Tony Jeffree            APR
> 
> 07 Bob Grow                                        DNV
> 
> 08 Stuart Kerry                                    DNV
> 
> 09 Bob Heile                                       DNV
> 
> 10 Roger Marks                                     DNV
> 
> 11 Mike Takefman           APR  
> 
> 12 Carl Stevenson          APR                          Comments
Received
> 
> 13 Jim Lansford                                    DNV
> 
> XX Reza Arefi                                           Comments
Received  
> 
>  
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 
>             totals:      4 APR   1 DIS   0 ABS   9 DNV
> 
>  
> 
> 10 APPROVES (2/3 majority) are required to PASS.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 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
> 
>  
>