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

Re: [802SEC] +++SEC Ballot: Rules change for SEC SC+++

Vic -

I'm going to vote Disapprove on this too.  It is not at all clear to me 
that there is a need to create a formal structure to do this kind of thing. 
In the past, cross-WG issues have been dealt with by mechanisms like the 
Technical Plenary and TAGs - if you need additional mechanisms to meet 
unusual/urgent circumstances (for example, the kind of external 
communication that you cite), there seems to be no particularly good reason 
why the WGs concerned shouldn't agree amongst themselves to hand off the 
final decision to a small group of people assigned to do *that task* (as 
opposed to a standing committee thet might/might not embody the right 
expertise for that particular job). We have quite enough bureaucracy in 802 
already without inventing more.

I would support Paul's suggestion that participants in TAGs should gain 
credit towards voting rights (in the WG that sent them to the TAG) for 
attending TAG meetings.


At 11:51 24/01/2002 +0000, Hayes, Vic (Vic) wrote:
>Dear SEC,
>Per the motion passed at the November 2001 meeting, attached you will find
>the proposal for the IEEE 802 Rules change to introduce an SEC Standing
>Committee for e-mail ballot. In addition, you will find the collection of
>comments received to a call for comments from the .1, .3, .11, .15 and .16
>The ballot opened January 24, 8 AM EDT and closes February 10 5pm EDT. As
>the SEC appointed me as the driver of the rules change, I respectfully
>request that you send your vote to me.
>  <<RR-01-028r1_Proposed_Rules_Change_for_SEC_Standing_Committees.doc>>
>Vic Hayes
>Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies
>Zadelstede 1-10
>3431 JZ  Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
>Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 1)
>FAX: +31 30 609 7498