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

Re: [802SEC] Question regarding OM 3.1.1c--WG and TAG charters



Paul -

I believe the charter of a WG is pretty clear - it is embodied in 
their past and current PARs and standards. I don't believe that we 
need anything more than that.

Regards,
Tony

At 13:05 11/06/2008, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>All,
>
>I was reviewing the thread associated with the scope of EC oversight 
>and the phrase "as it relates to their charters" caught my 
>attention.  We don't have written WG and TAG "charters" on file.  Should we?
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
>To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:56 PM
>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.