Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot - Proposed Resolution +++ AudCom
I believe I tried a more formal ballot / resolution form in the past,
and did not have much success. But I'd be happy to try again. I agree
that my summaries are a bit brief, and really directed to the individual
balloter rather than the EC as a whole.
Regarding the basic issue of the EC providing technical guidance; I
don't know how to develop such guidance on behalf of the EC without
having 'technical' votes. This is why my personal opinion (in
opposition of yours, Pat's, Roger's, and Steve's) is that we cannot
formally limit ourselves to procedural votes at this time. If at some
point we change the rules so that we can't deal with technical issue,
then I'd happily clarify that we only do procedural votes.
Regarding my 'recommended resolution' I hope people understand that this
is just my opinion as a single participant of the EC based on what I
hear others say. Anyone on the EC can put forward a recommended
resolution (and I encourage them to do so). I have an opinion on this
matter, but frankly I'm more interested in resolving the ballot then in
seem my opinion preside. The one thing I really do care about is that
we don't introduce more inconstancies into our rules than we already
have. So when I oppose you on this matter, it is as an individual (as
we are supposed to do) based on my desire to have a consistent document,
not because I have an opinion on technical vs procedural decisions in
For the record, my personal opinion on the matter is that while normally
we limit ourselves to procedural issues (and we should) that we not
formally rule out the possibility of making technical decisions. I
believe many matters can arise (such as an appeal) where we need to
consider and make decisions on technical issues. While I think we
should avoid such situations like the plague, I don't think we should
legislate them as impossible because unfortunately I think even the
question of whether a particular WG should consider a particular PAR or
it should be considered in an new group could be construed as a
Anyway I look forward to discussing things further.
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
Office: +1 973.633.6344
Cell: +1 973.229.9520
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:15 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot - Proposed Resolution
I believe that the existing P&P state, in 7.1.1 Function [of the EC]:
c) Provide procedural and, if necessary, technical guidance to the
Working Groups and Technical Advisory Groups as it relates to their
That is a far cry from the EC making technical decisions. So, while
agreeing with you that 188.8.131.52 a) should stand as in your proposed
draft, I believe that c) should be re-numbered as b), and read:
"b) Place procedural matters to a vote by EC members"
and there is an extra bullet needed, after c), of the form:
"c.5) Put technical matters to the EC so that technical guidance can
be offered to working groups. Where appropriate in order to determine
consensus on the guidance offered, place the guidance to a vote by EC
members. Such guidance is not binding on the WGs."
By the way, I notice that Steve, Roger, Pat, and now me, have
objected to your assertion that the EC makes technical decisions. How
many of us does it take for you to take it on board as an issue that
needs to be resolved by a larger group than just yourself?
The EC makes procedural decisions on technical matters where the
technical decision has already been taken by a WG or TAG. For
example, approving a PAR or a RevCom submission. The only other part
it plays in technical matters is offering technical guidance, if
necessary. If the EC were actually to make technical decisions, there
would/should be provision under existing 7.1.1 that such votes are
subject to the same rule as in WGs, namely a 75% approval. I don't
recall any such rule being applied in the EC hitherto, and I would
strongly resist its inclusion in the future.
The EC is not constituted as a technical body; notwithstanding the
undeniable technical expertise of individual EC members, it is not
competent as a body to make technical decisions on behalf of 802 or
its WGs, that os fundamentally the job of the WGs (jointly or
severally). It is a bit questionable as to whether it is really
competent to offer technical advice either, but as long as it isn't
binding, that doesn't give me too much discomfort.
I know ballot resolutions are time consuming, but proposed
resolutions of the form you have offered here are pretty much
impossible to parse, as they require the reader to find, and then
juggle with, the proposed text, the original comment emails, and your
rather cryptic summary of how they have been dealt with. I would very
much appreciate these summaries being presented in the kind of form
that we expect in WG ballot resolutions, where in one document you
can see each comment along with the proposed resolution and the
rationale for it. 802.3 and 802.16 have developed some useful tools
that simplify this process - I would suggest that you take a look at
At 05:51 11/07/2007, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>As a reminder we will hold the usual LMSC P&P review meeting this
>night. Attached is a proposed resolution to comments on the AudCom
>ballot as a starting point for discussions on Sunday. The primary
>agenda item for Sunday will be to come to consensus on a resolution for
>the AudCom ballot. If you can't make the meeting and have comments on
>the proposed resolution please forward them to the reflector for
>discussion. I will consider all comments circulated during the Sunday
>P&P review. Also, please be prepared to discuss the issues on the
>Chair's Guide as well on Sunday. We will discuss that topic as time
>allows after we complete discussions on the AudCom revision ballot.
>As much as possible, I have accepted the comments people made. In some
>cases, I tried to improve upon the desired changes a bit. In a few
>cases, I did not accept the requested change as I did not beleive with
>the rationale provided was valid. Here is a short list of the comment
>sets and key differences in my proposed resolutions:
>Stuart's comments - Fully incorporated
>Steve's comment - I disagree that EC cannot make technical decisions.
>adopted your other changes.
> Added Parliamentarian as non-voting, but that
>may make Bob O'Hara want to reconsider being parliamentarian...
> I snuck in emeritus. Perhaps it is time that
>officially recognize Geoff's non-voting status....
>John Lemon's comments - Adopted all except
> I believe it is common parliamentary practice
>for the chair not to make motions
> Once again, yes, the EC CAN DEAL WITH
> See 7.1.1 Function 'Provide
>procedural and, if necessary, technical guidance to the
>Working Groups and Technical Advisory Groups as it relates to their
> Non members can't formally be entitled to have
>things considered. But I agree on right of Appeal for everyone
> Again, we can deal with technical issues!
> Since some 'procedural votes' such as call the
>question are 66%, let's just reference Roberts Rules.
> Your thoughts on appointed positions not
>conflicts with other EC members
> For now I've gone with the other
> I don't understand your comment on moving Vice
>Chairs serving as Chairs.
> See alternate resolutions based on comments
>other EC members
> See Alternate resolutions
>Thanks and Regards to all,
>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>Cell: +1 973.229.9520
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.