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

Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment action item



Bruce,

I share the same concerns as you.

Thanks & Best regards,
jose

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of 
> Bruce Kraemer
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 6:09 AM
> To: Tony Jeffree
> Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment 
> action item
> 
> Tony,
> I have no argument with the intent. What I'm concerned about 
> is the mechanism.
> 
> One of the great shortfalls of all rules is that they a 
> written with good intentions by the original authors and then 
> mis-interpreted or subsequently mis-used because there is no 
> guidance in the rule itself as to how it is to be applied. As 
> you suggest, it seems reasonable for the EC to be interested 
> in ensuring "that the right attention is paid to cross-WG 
> issues & overall architecture". Is the proposed rule the best 
> way to accomplish that?
> 
> Bruce
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 9:30 AM
> To: Bruce Kraemer
> Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment 
> action item
> 
> Bruce -
> 
> I would sincerely hope that the intent is NOT to get us into 
> a major outbreak of EC members making detailed comments on 
> draft contents as part of the EC review of a project - if 
> they want to do that, then they already have a means of doing 
> it; either make comments on WG ballots (anyone can do that, 
> regardless of membership, and WGs have to consider them), or 
> join a Sponsor ballot group.
> 
> I believe the intent here is that the EC should be able to 
> comment on technical issues at a rather higher level - as 
> Paul has said, in order to ensure that the right attention is 
> paid to cross-WG issues & overall architecture, but also to 
> ensure that projects meet their commitments as documented in 
> PAR and 5C documents.
> 
> Regards,
> Tony
> 
> At 14:07 09/06/2008, Bruce Kraemer wrote:
> >James et al,
> >
> >While I can agree that technical review is good I disagree with the 
> >proposed method for accomplishing it.
> >
> >If the intent of the new language is to allow the EC members 
> to comment 
> >on the draft contents then it would be far more reasonable to revise
> the
> >P&P to include all EC members as part of the WG ballot pool. 
> This, in 
> >reality, is what the proposed P&P revision suggests.
> >
> >Using the standard ballot comment/revision process would allow the WG
> to
> >consider those comments as part of the comment resolution process and
> be
> >far less disruptive.
> >
> >
> >Bruce
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 5:29 PM
> >To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment action 
> >item
> >
> >All
> >
> >I agree with Geoff here.  The EC should be able to ask technical 
> >questions about the draft, particularly as it relates to the 
> 5Cs.  Any 
> >discussion of coexistence, would necessarily involve a technical 
> >discussion.
> >
> >I would find it unlikely that a majority of the EC would 
> delve into a 
> >detailed technical review of the draft.  Nevertheless, the 
> members of 
> >the EC should not be prevented from considering potential technical 
> >issues as they relate to the EC's role as sponsor.
> >
> >Suppose a WG submitted a draft that had an obvious technical hole
> (e.g.,
> >
> >in situation A perform action B but B is not defined in the 
> draft), but 
> >passed it anyway figuring they would "fix it in Sponsor ballot".  In 
> >this case, the EC should refuse to forward it and ask the WG to
> complete
> >
> >their work.
> >
> >I would imagine that these instances would be rare and would become
> even
> >
> >more rare if it was known that the EC might refuse to pass 
> on clearly 
> >flawed drafts.
> >
> >James Gilb
> >
> >Puthenkulam, Jose P wrote:
> > > Dear Geoff,
> > >
> > > I agree with the intent for the EC to have more technical 
> oversight
> >over
> > > the WG's drafts. I also applaud you as the sincere crusader, in
> terms
> >of
> > > doing what's best for our body.
> > >
> > > At the same time, I feel when a motion is called for a 
> vote, to do 
> > > justice in terms of a technical review of hundreds of 
> pages of a WG 
> > > draft standard without adequate planning, time and in some cases 
> > > technical background, it will be difficult. So the rule change as 
> > > proposed does not really accomplish the intent you are after.
> > >
> > > Maybe one approach might be to allow all EC members to submit
> comments
> > > in the Sponsor Ballot with some special designation. As this could
> be
> > > treated as mandatory co-ordination, the comments could be 
> dealt with
> >by
> > > the WGs with more seriousness.
> > >
> > > The sad situation we are in, is not something we can fix, just by 
> > > changing this rule. Because, I see documents that have barely 75% 
> > > approval passing the EC whereas, documents even with 90+% approval
> not
> > > necessarily making it. So with this rule change, I'm highly
> skeptical
> > > that we will accomplish much. But we might surely create more
> hurdles
> > > for the development process, we never intended to create, 
> especially 
> > > when we walk down the path of interpreting this change.
> > >
> > > thanks & best regards,
> > > jose
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >       From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortel.com]
> > >       Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 3:22 PM
> > >       To: Puthenkulam, Jose P
> > >       Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > >       Subject: Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, 
> item(e) comment 
> > > action item
> > >
> > >
> > >       Jose-
> > >
> > >       I believe that you are incorrect.
> > >
> > >       I do not think that:
> > >
> > >               "The IEEE Sponsor ballot is the place outside the WG
> for
> > > engaging technically and addressing all comments including
> >architectural
> > > consistency issues etc and matters the EC is interested in
> >overseeing."
> > >
> > >       When a member of the EC participates in an 802 
> Sponsor Ballot 
> > > he/she does so as an individual. The IEEE-SA has no 
> special category
> >for
> > > those of us who are responsible for technical oversight. Further,
> any
> > > comment that a member of the EC might put in as part of their 
> > > fulfillment of their oversight responsibility would be 
> dealt with in
> a
> > > forum that has no responsibility for anything other than 
> satisfying 
> > > their own project wishes.
> > >
> > >       The members of the EC as a collective entity have a 
> > > responsibility to ensure that the proposed draft has 
> fulfilled any 
> > > promises that were made in the 5 Criteria or in terms of meeting
> their
> > > responsibilities to be a "good member" of the 802 family.
> > >
> > >       802 has done a miserable job of fulfilling this 
> responsibility 
> > > over the years. That is, however, no reason for us to write that 
> > > responsibility out of our rules. It must remain procedurally
> >acceptable
> > > to bring this sort of issue up at the EC when a Working Group has
> >failed
> > > to do its job adequately. It is already an immense burden 
> to get the
> >EC
> > > to act on such an issue as the majority is generally 
> inclined to let 
> > > other working groups do anything that they want. There is 
> no reason
> to
> > > increase that burden by block it with a "procedural only" rule.
> > >
> > >       Best regards,
> > >
> > >       Geoff
> > >
> > >       At 10:50 AM 6/2/2008 , Puthenkulam, Jose P wrote:
> > >       Dear Paul, All,
> > >
> > >       I've some thoughts to share on this.
> > >
> > >       During the conf. call I did hear someone mention that, for 
> > > technical comments the EC members should participate in 
> the Sponsor 
> > > Ballots or in some cases WG ballots also as technical experts. I
> think
> > > that is most appropriate way to engage technically with regards to
> the
> > > technical content of the WG drafts.
> > >
> > >       Here is my rationale for this:
> > >
> > >       1.During a motion to move the WG draft to the 
> sponsor ballot 
> > > stage, if technical comments get generated by the EC, 
> then we do not 
> > > have an effective process to deal with them other than 
> the WG letter 
> > > ballot itself. So we should avoid creating more work than 
> necessary 
> > > here.
> > >
> > >       2.The IEEE Sponsor ballot is the place outside the WG for 
> > > engaging technically and addressing all comments including
> >architectural
> > > consistency issues etc and matters the EC is interested in
> overseeing.
> > >
> > >       3.So while I very much feel the EC members should have some 
> > > technical oversight over WG activities including content of the
> >drafts,
> > > I think that oversight should be undertaken as part of 
> the existing 
> > > procedures we have
> > >
> > >          - Approval of PARs
> > >          - Sponsor ballots
> > >          - WG letter ballots when EC members are also WG 
> members and 
> > > can participate
> > >
> > >       So I feel when a motion is made at the EC to forward the WG 
> > > draft to sponsor ballot, may not be the time for the EC 
> members to 
> > > engage in technical review of the content. Instead the 
> focus should
> be
> > > the review of the WG ballot procedures and comment resolutions
> >including
> > > approval rate, disaapproves etc.
> > >
> > >       So maybe we should leave the existing wording for 
> OM 3.1.1 as 
> > > is. However, maybe some other place we could add some clarity in
> terms
> > > of the technical oversight responsibility if it is not there
> already.
> > >
> > >       Hope this helps,
> > >
> > >       Thanks & Best Regards,
> > >       jose
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >       > -----Original Message-----
> > >       > From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > >       > [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> > >       > Paul Nikolich
> > >       > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:56 AM
> > >       > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > >       > Subject: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment 
> > > action item
> > >       >
> > >       > Mat,
> > >       >
> > >       > Per today's call, I had the action to provide alternative
> > >       > wording to the OM 3.1.1.e "Examine and approve WG draft
> > >       > standards for proper submission to Sponsor ballot 
> group; not
> > >       > for technical content.
> > >       >
> > >       > I suggest the deletion of  "; not for technical content"
> > >       >
> > >       > Implementing the deletion maintains consistency 
> with the OM
> > >       > 3.1.1.c "Provide procedural and, if necessary, TECHNICAL
> > >       > GUIDANCE to the WG and TAG as it relates to their 
> charters."
> > >       > (emphasis added)
> > >       >
> > >       > Altough the 'technical guidance' component of the EC
> funtions
> > >       > tends to be secondary to procedural guidance, it is an
> > >       > important component, especially when trying to maintain
> > >       > architectural consistency across a Sponsor which grows to
> the
> > >       > size and breadth of 802.
> > >       >
> > >       > Regards,
> > >       >
> > >       > --Paul
> > >       >
> > >       > ----------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > 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.
> 
> ----------
> 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.