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

RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership



Hi Everyone,

 

I had promised a summary of the comments on this ballot.  I had hoped to provide it with recommended resolutions.  But I haven’t finished recommended resolutions yet, and I decided not to wait.  This is by far the most commented ballot I've ever seen, including many comments from outside the EC as well.  A very large number of issues have been raised.  Here is a list of some of the issues raised:

 

1)              Initial membership establishment (main focus of ballot)

2)              Editorial / Minor

3)              Hibernating WG

4)              Treatment of Interims

5)              Block voting issues

6)              Additional leadership requirements

7)              Roll off of membership

8)              Membership in 802 vs membership in an 802 WG, TAG, or ECSG

9)              Membership in multiple WG at the same time

10) Definition of attendance credits

11) Procedure for WG start up (officer elections, etc)

12) Retention / loss of rights if waived in by chair

13) Conformance for SA & CS SAB rules concerning WG and SG

14) Clarifications on procedures for rules change

 

In addition I’ve decided that we need to be more cognizant of the rules in organizations above us that we must comply with.  Actually, I’m thinking of revisiting our whole procedure for rules changes.  But for now I will simply list what I believe the relevant SA and CS SAB rules are, and will encourage others to do the same when they put forward rules changes.  The relevant rules I see are:

 

 

 

 

 

From the CS SAB P&P:

 

3.1 Abbreviations

CSSC: CS Standards Committees, i.e. SAB, Sponsors, WGs, SGs

NHL: Next-higher-level committee

SAB: IEEE CS Standards Activities Board

SG: Study Group

WG: Working Group

3.3 Relation of this P&P to CSSC P&P documents

Default requirement: This P&P document specifies certain default requirements for all CSSC's. Any changes must be in an approved, written CSSC P&P.

Minimum/maximum requirement: This P&P document specifies certain default requirements for all CSSC's. Any CSSC specific changes must be in an approved, written CSSC P&P.

4.7 Membership

4.7.1 Requirements:

There are two types of membership for working groups or a sponsor balloting body: Individual Expert and Organizational Entity. These are mutually exclusive and decided upon at the PAR approval stage and remain until the end of the project.

4.7.1.1 Individual Expert

The default requirement for CSSC membership is a direct and material interest and willingness to participate in the activities of the CSSC, and attendance of at least two (2)  of the three (3) previous regularly-scheduled CSSC meetings, except in the case of newly formed CSSCs, for which voting privileges shall apply to all eligible attendees at the initial three meetings.  Membership also may be granted on the basis of written participation, provided that the CSSC P&P specifies the detailed circumstances of such grant.  Multi-day CSSC meetings shall not be interpreted as multiple CSSC meetings for purposes of achieving membership. Except for Organizational Representatives, CSSC Members shall participate in committees in a manner consistent with their professional expert opinion as individuals.

4.7.2 Expiration/Revocation:

Membership for CSSC members (other than Officers) shall by default expire upon the third (3rd) consecutive regularly-scheduled meeting of the CSSC not attended by the member, unless there is good cause for an absence.

[A notice should be sent by the CSSC Secretary to the member whose membership status is at risk thirty (30) days in advance of the meeting at which the membership would expire.] Membership shall be revoked upon the second consecutive letter ballot not returned in advance of the deadline, provided however that a warning notice to that effect was sent to the Member, whose membership is subject to revocation, a minimum of thirty (30) days in advance of the deadline of the second letter ballot. Membership may be suspended upon serious delinquency in payments of mandatory CSSC fees, provided that the CSSC P&P specifies the detailed circumstances of such suspension.

4.8.1 Elections of Chairs and Vice-Chairs:

Except for SAB Chair and Vice-Chair, as their existing terms expire, CSSC Chairs and Vice-Chairs shall be elected by the CSSC and confirmed by the NHL committee. The default and maximum term for Chair and Vice-Chair is two (2) years. Initial appointments, and temporary appointments to fill vacancies due to resignations or removals may be made by the Chair of the NHL committee, and shall be valid for no longer than six (6) months. Chairs and Vice-Chairs may be re-elected up to four (4) times.

4.8.2 Elections of Other Officers:

Officers other than Chair and Vice-Chair shall be elected by a majority vote of the CSSC. The default and maximum term of office for such elections shall be two (2) years. Such officers may be re-elected up to four (4) times.

4.13 Duties of Officers

The Officers of CSSCs other than SGs, shall be at a minimum a Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary. SGs shall at a minimum have a Chair.

7.0 WORKING GROUP PROCEDURES

7.1 Chair and Vice-Chair

 The Chair, and Vice-Chair of Working Groups shall be IEEE or   CS-affiliate   members.

8.0 STUDY GROUP PROCEDURES

The purpose of a Study Group shall be to determine whether sufficient   interest   and resources exist to develop a draft standard, and in the affirmative case, to develop the scope and purpose statements for a PAR. The Chair of a SG shall be appointed by the Sponsor Chair, for a period not to exceed six (6) months. SGs shall exist for no longer than six (6) months, at which time the SG shall either submit a PAR to the Sponsor, or be dissolved by the Sponsor Chair. The SG shall elect officers, other than Chair, as necessary.

 From the SA Standards Board OM reads:

 

5.2 Project authorization

No formal activity shall take place after six months from the day of the first meeting of the working group

without formal submittal of a PAR to the IEEE-SA Standards Board and assignment of a project number (see

5.1.2).

 

6.1.1 Project Authorization Request (PAR)

As part of the initial PAR procedure, the committee or working group shall appoint a chair (or official

reporter) who shall sign a Copyright Agreement acknowledging that the proposed standard constitutes a

“work made for hire” as defined by the Copyright Act, and that as to any work not so defined, any rights or

interest in the copyright to the standards publication is transferred to the IEEE.

 

 

 

 

Finally, the attached note provides a summary of the comments and ballot results.  Some of the components in the comments summary are PDF so I felt it safest to send as an attachment.

 

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

 



 

 

Issues raised on ballot

 

1)     Initial membership establishment (main focus of ballot)

2)     Editorial / Minor

3)     Hibernating WG

4)     Treatment of Interims

5)     Block voting issues

6)     Additional leadership requirements

7)     Roll off of membership

8)     Membership in 802 vs membership in an 802 WG, TAG, or ECSG

9)     Membership in multiple WG at the same time

10)Definition of attendance credits

11)Procedure for WG start up (officer elections, etc)

12)Retention / loss of rights if waived in by chair

13)Conformance for SA & CS SAB rules concerning WG and SG

14)Clarifications on procedures for rules change

 

 

 

 

 

The following is a summary of relevant rules from P&P with immediate precedence over ours:

 

From the CS SAB P&P:

 

3.1 Abbreviations

CSSC: CS Standards Committees, i.e. SAB, Sponsors, WGs, SGs

NHL: Next-higher-level committee

SAB: IEEE CS Standards Activities Board

SG: Study Group

WG: Working Group

3.3 Relation of this P&P to CSSC P&P documents

Default requirement: This P&P document specifies certain default requirements for all CSSC's. Any changes must be in an approved, written CSSC P&P.

Minimum/maximum requirement: This P&P document specifies certain default requirements for all CSSC's. Any CSSC specific changes must be in an approved, written CSSC P&P.

4.7 Membership

4.7.1 Requirements:

There are two types of membership for working groups or a sponsor balloting body: Individual Expert and Organizational Entity. These are mutually exclusive and decided upon at the PAR approval stage and remain until the end of the project.

4.7.1.1 Individual Expert

The default requirement for CSSC membership is a direct and material interest and willingness to participate in the activities of the CSSC, and attendance of at least two (2)  of the three (3) previous regularly-scheduled CSSC meetings, except in the case of newly formed CSSCs, for which voting privileges shall apply to all eligible attendees at the initial three meetings.  Membership also may be granted on the basis of written participation, provided that the CSSC P&P specifies the detailed circumstances of such grant.  Multi-day CSSC meetings shall not be interpreted as multiple CSSC meetings for purposes of achieving membership. Except for Organizational Representatives, CSSC Members shall participate in committees in a manner consistent with their professional expert opinion as individuals.

4.7.2 Expiration/Revocation:

Membership for CSSC members (other than Officers) shall by default expire upon the third (3rd) consecutive regularly-scheduled meeting of the CSSC not attended by the member, unless there is good cause for an absence.

[A notice should be sent by the CSSC Secretary to the member whose membership status is at risk thirty (30) days in advance of the meeting at which the membership would expire.] Membership shall be revoked upon the second consecutive letter ballot not returned in advance of the deadline, provided however that a warning notice to that effect was sent to the Member, whose membership is subject to revocation, a minimum of thirty (30) days in advance of the deadline of the second letter ballot. Membership may be suspended upon serious delinquency in payments of mandatory CSSC fees, provided that the CSSC P&P specifies the detailed circumstances of such suspension.

4.8.1 Elections of Chairs and Vice-Chairs:

Except for SAB Chair and Vice-Chair, as their existing terms expire, CSSC Chairs and Vice-Chairs shall be elected by the CSSC and confirmed by the NHL committee. The default and maximum term for Chair and Vice-Chair is two (2) years. Initial appointments, and temporary appointments to fill vacancies due to resignations or removals may be made by the Chair of the NHL committee, and shall be valid for no longer than six (6) months. Chairs and Vice-Chairs may be re-elected up to four (4) times.

4.8.2 Elections of Other Officers:

Officers other than Chair and Vice-Chair shall be elected by a majority vote of the CSSC. The default and maximum term of office for such elections shall be two (2) years. Such officers may be re-elected up to four (4) times.

4.13 Duties of Officers

The Officers of CSSCs other than SGs, shall be at a minimum a Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary. SGs shall at a minimum have a Chair.

7.0 WORKING GROUP PROCEDURES

7.1 Chair and Vice-Chair

 The Chair, and Vice-Chair of Working Groups shall be IEEE or   CS-affiliate   members.

8.0 STUDY GROUP PROCEDURES

The purpose of a Study Group shall be to determine whether sufficient   interest   and resources exist to develop a draft standard, and in the affirmative case, to develop the scope and purpose statements for a PAR. The Chair of a SG shall be appointed by the Sponsor Chair, for a period not to exceed six (6) months. SGs shall exist for no longer than six (6) months, at which time the SG shall either submit a PAR to the Sponsor, or be dissolved by the Sponsor Chair. The SG shall elect officers, other than Chair, as necessary.

 

 

From the SA Standards Board OM reads:

 

5.2 Project authorization

No formal activity shall take place after six months from the day of the first meeting of the working group

without formal submittal of a PAR to the IEEE-SA Standards Board and assignment of a project number (see

5.1.2).

 

6.1.1 Project Authorization Request (PAR)

As part of the initial PAR procedure, the committee or working group shall appoint a chair (or official

reporter) who shall sign a Copyright Agreement acknowledging that the proposed standard constitutes a

“work made for hire” as defined by the Copyright Act, and that as to any work not so defined, any rights or

interest in the copyright to the standards publication is transferred to the IEEE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear EC members,

 

Below is the status on the LMSC P&P Revision Ballot on WG Membership.  The ballot closes April 28, 2003 11:59 PM EDT. This is about one week away.  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. Also, very few people have been using the comment form to provide formal comments.  When I say comments provided, they have often been informal comments that I intend to include in ballot resolution.  Note that 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 well before comment resolution on this ballot occurs.

 

Best Regards,

 

Mat

                                   

 

Ballot Results and comments as of 4/29/03

 

00 Paul Nikolich                   DIS                   Comments Provided    

01 Geoff Thompson                  DIS                   Comments Provided    

02 Matthew Sherman                                 DNV

03 Buzz Rigsbee                                    DNV   Comments Provided 

04 Bob O'Hara                      DIS                   Comments Provided    

05 Bill Quackenbush                DIS                   Comments?

06 Tony Jeffree                    DIS                   Comments Provided

07 Bob Grow                        DIS                   Comments Provided

08 Stuart Kerry                                    DNV

09 Bob Heile                                       DNV

10 Roger Marks                     DIS                   Comments Provided

11 Mike Takefman                   DIS                   Comments Provided

12 Carl Stevenson                                  DNV

13 Jim Lansford                    DIS                   Comments Provided

XX Mark Klerer                                           Comments Provided

XX Robert Love                                           Comments Provided

XX Ken Alogne                                            Comments Provided

XX Reza Arefi                                            Comments Provided

XX Joanne Wilson                                         Comments Provided

 

-------------------------------------------------------

            totals:      0 APR   9 DIS   0 ABS   5 DNV

 

10 APPROVES (2/3 majority) are required to PASS. Ballot Fails pending comment resolution.

 

 

 

Comments during ballot:

 

 

 

Roger B. Marks [r.b.marks@ieee.org]                       Mon 4/28/2003 7:33 PM

 

(1) I disagree with the premise of the rules change, which is that is

is somehow inappropriate for new people to assume membership in a new

Working Group. A new Working Group is just that: new. Past experience

in a Study Group should not be a qualification.

 

(2) 802 works under the IEEE Computer Society Standards Activities

Board, which,I assert, agrees with me. The CS SAB Policies and

Procedures are in fact much MORE open to new participants than are

the current 802 rules. They read:

 

"The default requirement for CSSC membership is a direct and material

interest and willingness to participate in the activities of the

CSSC, and attendance of at least two (2) of the three (3) previous

regularly-scheduled CSSC meetings, except in the case of newly formed

CSSCs, for which voting privileges shall apply to all eligible

attendees at the initial three meetings."

 

(3) We should not be trying to hand ownership of a new Working Group

to those who participated in the previous Study Group. An EC Study

Group already has enormous power in that it drafts a PAR, which is

binding on the future Working Group. This gives the Study Group

tremendous clout far into the future. It's a mistake to grant it even

more control by trying to block out new voters.

 

(4) A EC Study Group is an internal entity within 802. A new Working

Group, on the other hand, oversees a PAR, which is advertised by IEEE

as a new project. The new Working Group has, inherently, a larger and

wider audience than a Study Group. An EC Study Group may surmise that

a new project may have the potential for broad consensus. However, it

needs to test its perceptions by opening a new project and see

whether the broader consensus really exists. The looming need to face

a broad new membership group should provide an incentive for the

Study Group to actually spend some time thinking about developing a

consensus. The proposed rules change will make it even more likely

that we will see, in the future, more of what we have sometimes seen

in the past: narrowly-defined EC Study Groups that operate quietly

and try to avoid dealing with the wide panoply of interests. The

changed rule will further increase the possibility that 802 EC Study

Groups will become perceived as arcane, closed bodies divorced from

the real world.

 

 

 

 

Jim Lansford [jimlans@mobilian.com]             Mon 4/28/2003 3:10 PM

 

I also vote disapprove; my main concern is the either/or of attendance or letter of intent in 5.1.3.1.  I think many people today understand the 75% rule for two plenaries...I think it's reasonable to ask them to confirm their interest after they have met an attendance criteria, but not simply to get voting rights on the basis of a LOI.  Similarly, there could be a somewhat relaxed attendance requirement for transition from a Study Group, but still confirmed with an (electronic) LOI confirmation.  This would avoid the automatic voting rights issue that I think a lot of us are uncomfortable with.

 

 

 

 

Paul Nikolich [paul.nikolich@att.net]              Mon 4/28/2003 5:36 AM

 

 

Disapprove--I agree with Geoff's comments.

 

 

 

 

Tony Jeffree [tony@jeffree.co.uk]                  Mon 4/28/2003 4:49 AM

 

I vote Disapprove. While broadly in agreement with the intent, there are a couple of things which need fixing still. Comments attached.

 

 

Clause

Comment Type
(Editorial of Substantive)
(E or S)

Part of No Vote? (Y or N)

Comment / Explaination

Recommended Change

5.1.3.1

S

Y

The letter of intent should not be optional. Granting of membership should not be an automatic process; the person concerned may have no intention to take on the responsibilities of membership.

Remove "(optionaly)".

5.1.3.1

S

Y

Should make it clear how participation is asserted, and how simultaneous participation in two different meetings is prevented.

Add the following text between the second and third sentences of the first para: "Participation in meetings is recorded via the signup sheet(s) circulated by the Working Group secretariat. By signing a signup sheet for a given meeting, an individuall is asserting that he/she has participated, or will participate, in 75% of the meeting concerned. If an individual signs the attendance sheets for two meetings in different working groups that occur at the same time, no participation credit is granted for either meeting.

 

S

N

While not strictly part of this proposed change, I believe that there is one more issue relevant to the formation of a new WG that needs fixing, namely, that the rules are very unclear/confused on the issue of how the Chair of a new WG is chosen and confirmed. Some parts of the P&P imply that the SEC Chair appoints and the WG confirms; others imply that the WG elects and the SEC confirms.

Fix the rules on this point. I believe that what should happen is that the WG recommends, and the SEC appoints, taking account of that recommendation.

 

S

N

While not strictly part of this proposed change, I believe that the current rules do not make it sufficiently explicit that the formation of a new WG, or the reincarnation of a hibernating WG, can only happen after a Study Group (Exec or WG study group) has raised a PAR and the SEC has determined that the (re)incarnation of a WG is the appropriate way for the project to be progressed.

Fix the rules on this point.

 

 

 

Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com]           Fri 4/25/2003 2:06 PM

 

 

I vote disapprove, comments attached.

 

 

Clause

Comment Type
(Editorial of Substantive)
(E or S)

Part of No Vote? (Y or N)

Comment / Explaination

Recommended Change

5.1.3.1 1st paragraph, line 3

S

Y

Addition of "in a meeting" adds an unenforcable requirement.  Without electronic monitoring of individuals, there is no way to tell if someone was in attendance 75% of the time. This is particularly difficult when the WG breaks into TF/SG and even smaller group meetings.

The rules should state the basic requirement and allow for WG implementation.  Replace the current participation sentence and the new one with:
"Participation in a session is defined as at least 75% presence as determined by Working Group attendance procedures."

5.1.3.1 1st paragraph, line 3

S

N

If an intent of the way this was written was to disallow credit in multiple WG for the same meeting times, then that should be specified directly, not obliquely

"Working Group participation credit may be denied when an individual attempts to gain credit for attendance at simultaneous meetings of different Working Groups, or TAGs."

5.1.3.1 1st line deletion, and 2nd paragraph, lines 1-4

S

Y

While I believe this might be appropriate, I don't think this kind of change should be attempted in isolation.  I am increasingly convinced we need a total rewrite of the rules rather than attacking little issues one at a time.  At a minimum a change should include both gaining and retaining requirements during startup.

Return the deleted phrase at the beginning of the subsection and delete the proposed study group membership text.  Any action changing membership establishment and or retention should be done as a whole.

5.1.3.1 2nd paragraph, lines 4-8

S

Y

This is an inappropriate requirement.  While 802 participation is relevant to qualifications it shouldn't be a requirement.

Qualifications for WG chairs are currently left vague (only referencing technical expertise, not SDO or 802 experience), and are specified in 3.2 while other requirements of the Chair are in 5.1.2.  Adding experierience requirements to 5.1.3.1 is a bad idea.

If SDO/802 experience is required, it is appropriate to add it to 3.2, item 1.  It is not absolutely clear if the letter requirement of 3.2 are prerequisites for being elected WG Chair, or for being confirmed as an SEC member. I personally believe SDO and or 802 experience are relevant considerations to both being a WG Chair or a member of the SEC.

Delete from the sentence beginning at the end of line 4 ("In no case should...") to the end of the proposed paragraph.

Change 3.2, item 1 to read:  "statement of qualification to fulfill the assignment including technical expertise, standards development experience and IEEE 802 participation, and".

Insert as the new second sentence of 5.1.2:  "A candidate for Working Group Chair shall submit a letter of endorsement (see 3.2) prior to the election."

5.1.3.1 3rd paragraph, last line

E

N

The proposed insertion add nothing of value.

Remove it from the propose change.

 

 

 

Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]            Tue 4/22/2003 10:06 AM

 

 

 

 

 

Mike Takefman [tak@cisco.com]            Tue 4/22/2003 10:24 AM

 

 

my ballot - vote is no with an easy (I think) change to make

it a yes.

 

 

Clause

Comment Type
(Editorial of Substantive)
(E or S)

Part of No Vote? (Y or N)

Comment / Explaination

Recommended Change

5.1.3.1 Second Paragraph

S

Y

There is no need to explain the requirement for being a member in good standing by the end of the session. It is typical in any democracy that the right to hold office also requires the person be eligible to vote. Trying to link it to lack of knowledge of the policies and procedures of 802 opens the issue up to appeal. Suppose someone is a chair of another IEEE standards group, they could claim that they can learn the 802 rules fast enough given their past experience.

Delete from ", as they are unlikely"

 

 

 

Ken Alonge [kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]            Mon 4/14/2003 8:11 AM

 

Tony-

 

 

Unfortunately, since the .10 Standards are up for re-affirmation this year, we can't wait until the LinkSec SG completes its work.  From my participation in the SG meetings at the March plenary and in the weekly conference calls, as far as I can tell, the LinkSec SG is at least 6 months (if not longer) away from deciding on a direction to pursue with regard to a security solution.  I can almost guarantee from the discussions that I've participated in that at least the Secure Data Exchange (SDE) protocol portion of the .10 Standards will satisfy most (if not all) the security needs of 802 that have been espoused thus far.  Therefore, if we wait until the LinkSec SG completes its analyses to move to revise SDE, the .10 Standards will have automatically been withdrawn.  If the revision motion is approved at the July plenary, the updates to SDE will be complete by the time the SG finishes its anlalyses, which I'm certain will show that the modified SDE is the right choice for 802 security.

 

 

 

 

Tony Jeffree [tony@jeffree.co.uk]             Mon 4/14/2003 8:36 AM

 

Ken -

I'm afraid I don't share your certainty. While there are some people in Link Sec that favour using .10, there are also others that do not. Right now, I don't believe that you can meet the "Broad Market Potential" requirement of the 5 Criteria, in the absence of confirmation from LinkSec that they want/need the .10 standards.

As for the reaffirmation issue, if revisions are necessary before the standards are reaffirmed, then holding off until such a time as there is some real clarity in LinkSec as to whether they need .10, and if so, what revisions are needed, does no harm whatsoever. Once we have that clarity, it will be perfectly possible at that point to raise a PAR to revise the .10 standards, whether or not they have been withdrawn in the meantime. As far as I am aware, there are no commercial implementations of 802.10 right now, so there is absolutely no urgency about reaffirmation.

I have no personal view as to whether or not .10 should be part of the LinkSec solution; however, I am concerned, as I indicated to you in March, that prematurely launching into this piece of work will needlessly divert effort away from the LinkSec activity. It also has the potential of creating a situation where, having made your revisions, LinkSec would then be under pressure to use the result, regardless of its appropriateness (or otherwise) to their needs. I don't want either of those things to happen.

 

Tony Jeffree [tony@jeffree.co.uk]             Mon 4/14/2003 4:23 AM

 

Ken -

I don't believe that you are considered to be a SG until such a time as you are defined to be one. Right now, you are a hibernating WG.

Since a large part of the rationale for revising 802.10 that you presented in March was your view that a revised 802.10 would serve the needs of the Link Sec study group, I believe the appropriate course of action would be for any such PAR to be developed within the Link Sec SG. Right now, the SG has yet to determine whether or not 802.10 will play a part in whatever mechanisms they decide to use.

 

 

Mark Klerer [M.Klerer@flarion.com]            Sat 4/12/2003 10:20 PM

 

Mat,

 

You are right. If you have an ECSG and participate in that you get no credit for anything else. This can even lead to the peculiar result (it could happen in case of the LL Sec ECSG) that if the work gets placed into another working group as a TG (and you do not use the 802.11 rule) no member of the SG would have voting rights (unless granted by the chair).

 

 

 

Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)              Sat 4/12/2003 9:42 PM

 

Hi all,

 

One more thing that bugs me about the current WG/SG relationship.  For an ECSG, if you participate in nothing else, I don’t believe you get attendance/membership credit anywhere in 802.  This seems particularly unfair for people who’s work will lead to the formation of a new working group.  If they do happen to miss the first meeting for some reason (and show up at the second and all future meetings) they get no credit for all their work.  One more reason why I feel SGs (particularly ECSGs) should be viewed as pre-PAR WGs.

 

 

 

Mark Klerer [M.Klerer@flarion.com]            Sat 4/12/2003 9:23 PM

 

I agree with Mat.

 

In constructing the proposed operating rules for 802.20 I had researched the operating rules of the LMSC and the various Working Groups in order to use them as model for the proposal. In the 802.11 Operating Rules I actually found that when they form a new Task Group from a Study Group all members of the Study Group are granted membership in the TG. This clearly establishes a precedent within 802 for counting participation in the SG for credit. Individuals walking in to the first meeting of the TG do not get voting rights. The rule is in Section 3.6 of the 802.11 Op Rules

 

            "At the formation of a TG from a SG, all SG participants are automatically granted membership of the TG."

 

I believe that this is a fair rule as the members of the SG have contributed to defining and seriously contributing to the work. The same rule is incorporated in the proposed 802.20 op rules as this removes an important distinction between whether a project were to start form a WGSG or an ECSG and is more open.

 

 

Ken Alonge [kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]            Sat 4/12/2003 6:24 PM

 

Mat-

 

I guess .10 is the exception again, since the hibernating members of .10 are developing a PAR and 5 criteria for the revision to IEEE Std 802.10-1998.  Since we are doing this work, are we considered a Study Group?  Under the current definition of an SG, I don't believe so.  But who is better qualified to develop the PAR and 5 Criteria for revision of a Standard than the hibernating working group members?  I would like to hear from some of the other Exec members on this, since I plan to submit the PAR for approval by the Exec at the July plenary.

 

 

Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [carlstevenson@agere.com]          Sat 4/12/2003 7:31 AM

 

While I agree with Buzz that a TG must operate under the WG rules, I

still believe that each TG develops its own culture and often draws a

relatively large number of newcomers, depending on its task.

 

From my experience, a TG is preceded by a SG, which must develop

a PAR and 5 Criteria ... which the WG chair brings to the SEC for

approval ... and, again from my experience, there are often a number

of newcomers involved in that process.  (So the SEC *does* approve

PARs for TGs, Buzz ...)

 

So, I see essentially no difference between having a SG before a TG

and having a SG before a WG ... I think it's a VERY good idea in both

cases and I believe that the folks who have done the work of developing

the PAR should have credit for that in terms of voting rights and newcomers

should have to earn theirs by putting forth the same amount of time and

effort (just showing up for the first meeting [or session] doesn't cut it for me).

 

 

Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [carlstevenson@agere.com]          Sat 4/12/2003 7:21 AM

 

I keep reading and I'm still violently in agreement with Mat.

 

 

Rigsbee, Everett O [everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]           Sat 4/12/2003 1:15 AM

 

Matt,  I guess we do disagree on this one, since as I see it, all the various TGs of a WG must operate under the same set of WG rules and procedures, and all of their actions must be ratified by the WG as a whole in order for them to be effective.  A new WG has many more degrees of freedom and less baggage to accommodate as it chooses its course and direction.  It is precisely because the formation of a new WG is a relatively infrequent event that I am willing to allow the one-time rule, which requires SEC oversight, to be in effect.  If we had that same requirement for every TG that forms, we’d need to double our SEC meeting times to support that.  A new WG/TAG is the only place where you have the need for a nearly context free start-up, and the only context is really what is written in the PAR that was approved.  That’s their “ticket to ride” and all who will participate in the activity should start on an equal footing without predisposition.  That’s the way I see it, anyway.

 

 

Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)              Fri 4/11/2003 10:59 PM

 

Buzz,

 

Clearly there is a balance between too much supervision and too little.  The proper place for that balance may shift with the times.  I think that the culture of a TG is a culture unto itself, as much as the culture unto a WG is a culture unto itself.  So I reiterate that if you are going to waive everyone in at the initiation of a WG, then you should do so at the initiation of a task group as well.  It is far more common that we start a TG than a WG, and the process where new members of the TG must develop their membership either during the study group phase, or afterwards using the 3 plenary rule seems to work fine.

 

In my mind the study group plays the part of the pre-par WG.  If a WG did initiate without a PAR the only work they could do would be to hold an SG under SG rules to develop a PAR.  If we are to continue with this first meeting rule, I’d rather do away with study groups, initiate the WG when we first decide we want to develop a PAR, let the WG elect it’s officers immediately, and then do the PAR.  If people then want to have voting rights when the first TG for the WG begins it’s work, then they will have to participate in the PAR development anyway.  Bottom line is I think if technical people really care about an activity they should show up for the PAR development.  I view a SG as a pre-PAR WG (which is perhaps more consistent with SA rules), and therefore think that attendance at the SG should count toward attendance for the WG, since it my mind it is doing the work of the WG anyway.  If the WG already existed (but had not PAR yet) it   would have to form the study group and develop voting rights (for new people) via the SG anyway.  So I don’t understand why we should treat the case of a new WG differently than that.

 

Bottom line is we may just have to agree to disagree.  I’m open for more discussion, but so far I have not been persuaded.

 

 

Rigsbee, Everett O [everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]           Fri 4/11/2003 6:04 PM

 

Matt,  I appreciate the concerns you have expressed.  I too am concerned by what could be interpreted as the Hi-Jacking of an approved WG by a large group of “outsiders” who had not participated in the earlier Study Group activities.  I have heard opinions expressed that these outsiders are only there to impede or prevent the creation of a standard by this working group, an activity which clearly should not be allowed to happen.  Perhaps because I tend to be an optimist and take the somewhat Pollyanna view of most situations, I believe that there are better ways to deal with this type of a problem than to try to craft a more restrictive set of rules, which could act to inhibit the openness of the 802 process.  I can envision an alternate scenario which could be equally destructive, whereby a group of enthusiastic supporters for a specific approach overloads the attendance at the Study Group phase, and thereby dominates the initial meeting, the election of officers, and sets the group off on a very narrow path that excludes other viable proposals from consideration.  Corporate competition is always such that it will try to rear its ugly head in an otherwise free and open process.  

 

But that’s one of the major reasons why we (the SEC) are here: to oversee that the process is open and well-protected from corporate/organizational abuse.  I think we have already demonstrated by our actions that we have some concern that there may have been some unsavory activity in what transpired at the March plenary, and that we need to implement some tighter controls in July to ensure that we can truly see what forces if any are at work.  So while I share your concerns, I would prefer that we seek other remedies to the potential problems than to restrict the openness of our process.  The SEC is perfectly capable of exerting its influence to ensure that abuses are not to be tolerated.  

 

As to your seeing a lack of distinction between the SG to TG transition within a WG, compared with the ECSG to WG transition, I will merely point out that the difference is exactly based on the fact that one is done within the pre-established context of an existing WG, which already has developed a “culture”, officers, rules, and history of precedents that will guide their TGs, and must be conformed with to be a viable TG.  Thus a “learning process” should be a mandatory part of gaining membership for the pre-existing WG.  By contrast, when forming a new WG, there is no culture, officers, rules, or history to deal with.  They will all be developed as the participants build their own culture (probably patterned after some other WGs) but the group is free to choose the patterns which work best for them.  To give the preferential treatment of instant membership only to prior Study Group participants, may in fact prevent/delay the actual WG participants from be free to determine their own culture, and allow a minority to dominate the early critical period of the WG history.  A brand new WG is a very different context than the a new TG in an existing WG, and we should not try to force them to be the same.  

 

 

Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [carlstevenson@agere.com]          Fri 4/11/2003 5:08 PM

 

Again I agree with Mat ... I also think a SG should preceed a new WG (or TG) and also

the "un-hibernation" of a hibernating WG ... I don't think a WG should "pop" into existence

without a well-defined PAR and 5 Criteria that the SEC can approve.

 

I also favor the notion that documented participation in the SG should be the criteria

for initial WG membership and that those who show up out of the blue at the 1st

session of a new WG/TG or an un-hibernated WG should have to earn voting rights by

attendance.  Since SGs are chartered from one plenary to the next, those who are

truly interested in the work can demonstrate it by attending the 1st plenary and the

subsequent interim ... thus, they would have earned voting rights through the same

level of participation in the SG preceeding the WG as someone who, for example,

starts attending 802.xx at the July plenary and then attends the Sept interim gains

 

 

Rigsbee, Everett O [everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]           Fri 4/11/2003 4:10 PM

 

Bob,  This has actually happened in the past (802.4 was brought out of hibernation once or twice for various items). 

 

My recollection of the process (not adequately documented in our rules, of course) is as follows: 

 

1.  As a hibernating WG chair, the chair maintains a list of participants and “experts”, who can be consulted in the event of a request for interpretation or maintenance item.  Usually these are former WG members, who participated in the development of the standard. 

 

2.  When a potential need for re-activation is determined, the hibernating WG chair contacts his list of experts to see if there is sufficient support and interest to permit meaningful standards development to occur.  At the same time a general Call for Interest is publicized to attract any new interested participants. 

 

3.  If sufficient participant response is received and documented, the hibernating WG chair can bring forth a motion to the SEC that a formal reactivation of the WG be approved.  

 

4.  Assuming the motion to reactivate is approved, at the first official session of the newly reactivated WG all active participants are granted membership (i.e. voting rights) and officer elections are held, just as for newly formed WGs.  After that point in time, the 3-meeting rule takes effect.  

 

I hope this helps and maybe we can see that this point is covered as part of our ongoing rules update process.

 

 

Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)              Fri 4/11/2003 4:11 PM

 

Ken,

 

It was 20 cents well spent.  But to be clear, a new WG can evolve from ANY study group – and EC SG or a WG SG.  The point is that some sort of work (a PAR) should be developed for the new WG before it pops into existence.  PAR’s (again I could be wrong) are developed normally in Study Groups.  I don’t know of any exceptions to this these days.  So I believe a Study Group should always precede a PAR, and thus a new WG.  The same statements would hold for a hibernating WG being brought out of Hibernation.

 

 

Ken Alonge [kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]            Fri 4/11/2003 4:01 PM

 

Mat-

 

The main difference that I see is that .10 was not formed from an EC study group and, therefore, the members wouldn't have built up voting rights credits. So, in order to handle a similar situation in the future (if one ever expects a similar situation to ever occur again) voting rights would have to be granted to all who attend the first meeting of the WG, so they could elect officers and begin voting on issues related to their work.  This is the model that could/should be used for un-hibernating a working group, as well. If the "unwritten" model within 802 forevermore is that all new WGs will ONLY come from ECSGs, then the rules changes being proposed will work, but I believe that this is a very shortsighted position.

 

Looks like we're back to my original e-mail on the topic, and my two cents wound up to be 20 cents.  Sorry to belabor the point.

 

 

Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)              Fri 4/11/2003 3:43 PM

 

Ken,

 

I very much appreciate the history.  It sounds to me that your group had a relatively typical evolution.  I don’t think what happened is incompatible with the rules we are suggesting for today.

 

 

 

Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)              Fri 4/11/2003 3:39 PM

 

Bob,

 

Yes, this is a know issue.  I think we can try to address it under the current membership P&P rules change if we like.  My own opinion is that once all the old members role off you should start from scratch with a study group, develop a PAR, etc.  Note that there should be reaffirmations every 2 years.  If a WG has been in hibernation that long they will have to hold a new election anyway. 

 

 

Ken Alonge [kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]            Fri 4/11/2003 1:35 PM

 

Mat-

 

I dug out the old minutes from the very first meetings of .10.  Kim was the drafter of the PAR, which was reviewed and approved by attendees of the pre-802.10 WG meetings.  The PAR was approved by the Exec during the July 1988 plenary meeting, which was the 4th meeting of the group that ultimately became 802.10.  The minutes from the 6th meeting, which is the 3rd meeting as 802.10, indicate that all attendees at meetings 4 & 5 had immediate voting rights.  They numbered about 25.  The attendees list from the subsequent 4 meetings (meetings 6-10) indicate that most (90%) of the original members who were granted voting rights continued to attend and made contributions to the development of the Standard.  In actuality, the voting membership grew to about 30 over the next few meetings.  Kim was there from day 1 of the group, even before it became 802.10.

 

By the way, .10 was formed from the membership of and was sponsored by not only the TC on Security and Privacy (as I stated previously), but also the TC on Computer Communications.  There was quite a diverse membership from the standpoint of industry, government, and academia representatives, as well as their expertise in networking and security.

 

 

Bob O'Hara [bob@airespace.com]           Fri 4/11/2003 1:30 PM

 

Ken raises (indirectly) another issue with membership.  What happens if the SEC decides to bring 802.10 out of hibernation?  Who are the members?  When do they gain membership?  This is another example of how a WG might "pop" into existence.

 

 

 Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)             Fri 4/11/2003 9:35 AM

 

Ken,

 

What you describe sounds very much like an informal version of what I would normally expect to do today.  If I understand you correctly (correct me if I don’t) the sequence was:

 

Informal discussion outside and within 802

Plenary 1: Present proposal need for new work item to EC and tutorial to membership

Plenary 2: Present PAR to EC.  Approve PAR. Approve WG with acting chair

Plenary 3: First WG meeting.  Have elections.

 

Today I think the sequence would have run:

 

Plenary 1: Present proposal for new work, tutorial to membership, form SG to write PAR

Plenary 2: Present and approve PAR.  Approve WG with acting chair

Plenary 3: First WG meeting.  Have elections.

 

So I don’t think things are so different.  To me the more important questions are:

 

Did the original leadership of 802.10 (Kimberly for instance) participate in the PAR development?   Was the first WG meeting Kimberly’s first meeting?

 

How many showed up for that first meeting?  Of those that showed up, how many became regular members vs just showing up to say they have voting rights?  How many of those at the first meeting participated in the PAR development?  Were the one that stayed on in the group the ones that helped develop the PAR, or the ones who showed up for the first time at the first meeting?

 

I think these are the questions that are most relevant.  I think that today it is a given that we would not start a new WG without first having a draft PAR in mind for them to work on.  Personally, I would prefer a slightly extended SG process to give people more time to acclimate.  I would have preferred a process more like:

 

Plenary 1:  Present proposal for new work to EC, form SG

Plenary 2:  Present draft PAR and Tutorial to 802 membership

Plenary 3:  Approve PAR, approve new WG

Plenary 4:  First WG meeting.  Have elections.

 

But I recognize this might be impeding progress more that people would like, so I doubt I would ever mandate a 3 Plenary approval process.  Just my thoughts.

 

 

Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)              Fri 4/11/2003 8:18 AM

 

Tony,

 

I wish to second your opinion regarding hibernating WG requiring a SG and a PAR to come out of hibernation.

 

Mat

 

 

Ken Alonge [kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]            Fri 4/11/2003 8:24 AM

 

Mat/Tony-

 

My recollection of what happened in the formation of .10 in the Wild Wild West days was that a group of security engineers who were members of the Technical Committee on Security and Privacy (not sure if I've got the name exactly right) determined that there was a significant need for security in 802 LANs.  A few of those engineers put together a tutorial, which was presented at an 802 plenary meeting (sometime in the 1987-88 timeframe).  Based on that tutorial and some discussion with members of the Exec, who agreed that secuirty should be provided for 802 LANs, a PAR was developed by the founders of .10 and submitted to the Exec for approval at the next plenary.  The rest is history.  All attendees at the first meeting of .10 immediately got voting rights (I unfortunately did not attend that first meeting, so I had to earn mine through the usual process).  The original .10 Chair (Kimberly Kirkpatrick) was granted Exec voting rights at the next plenary -- she had no previous 802 experience, but was mentored by the other Chairs.  When I took over from Kim in 1992 after she became seriously ill, I also had no experience in running an 802 Working Group (or even a study group for that matter), but I too was mentored by the other Chairs.  As I recall, there were also some tutorials offered by the IEEE Staff on "How to be a Good Chair" - my own made up title for this.  These were very helpful in learing the processes.

 

Obviously, things change over time (sometimes for the better), but I hope we don't ignore the successes of the past.  I firmly believe that there should be a well worded process for forming new Working Groups in any revision of the P&P, which is flexible enough to accommodate formation of a Working Group directly from an outside body of expertise that doesn't have to become a Study Group, which is spun off from another 802 Working Group first.

 

Also, at some point (hopefully soon) the issue of un-hibernating a Working Group needs to be addressed, because I will be presenting a PAR to the Exec before the next plenary for revisions to IEEE Std 802.10-1998.

 

 

Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [carlstevenson@agere.com]          Fri 4/11/2003 7:04 AM

 

Again I believe I am in violent agreement with Mat.

 

 

Tony Jeffree [tony@jeffree.co.uk]             Fri 4/11/2003 4:11 AM

 

Mat/Ken -

If my memory serves me correctly, the concept of Study Groups post-dates the formation of 802.10. At the time .10 was formed, the formation of new WGs was simply a result of the SEC waving its collective magic wand. As such, the 802.10 case doesn't shed any light whatsoever on current P&P or operating practice.

I believe the intent of the current 802 rules, particularly 5.3, is that a future new WG would not come into being without a Study Group first developing a PAR for its work and the SEC making a decision as to where that PAR would be placed. The wording in the rules could benefit from making that a more explicit requirement, but the intent is nonetheless clear. So we're not talking unwritten rules here; badly written rules, perhaps, but written nonetheless.

My personal view is that the same principle must apply to hibernating WGs - i.e., that they cannot be magically un-hibernated by a waving of the SEC magic wand without the pre-cursor of establishing a Study Group to define a PAR for the work that they might do.


 

 

 

Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)              Fri 4/11/2003 12:04 AM

 

Buzz,

 

So I thank you for your gentle correction.  Really, I should not be second guessing the intent of the creators of this rule.  Of course, I don’t have to.  I can simply say I disagree with it whatever it was.  In my mind recent events have shown that the 1st meeting rule is simply too open to abuse to continue to exist.  There has to be a better way.  I was going to respond to your comments point by point, but I decided not to in light of recent traffic I received.

 

Perhaps the membership question is more complex than it sounds.  Perhaps we also have to ask what is a Working Group, and what is a Study Group?  Ken’s e-mail caught me off guard because it had not occurred to me that a Working Group pre-exists a PAR.  Repeating from my response to Ken the SA Standards Board OM reads:

 

5.2 Project authorization

No formal activity shall take place after six months from the day of the first meeting of the working group

without formal submittal of a PAR to the IEEE-SA Standards Board and assignment of a project number (see

5.1.2).

 

6.1.1 Project Authorization Request (PAR)

As part of the initial PAR procedure, the committee or working group shall appoint a chair (or official

reporter) who shall sign a Copyright Agreement acknowledging that the proposed standard constitutes a

“work made for hire” as defined by the Copyright Act, and that as to any work not so defined, any rights or

interest in the copyright to the standards publication is transferred to the IEEE.

 

 

In addition Joanne Wilson of ArrayComm hit me with some side traffic that highlighted the fact that Study Groups exist within Working Groups as well as at the EC level.  When a Study Group transitions to a Task Group, there is no membership issue.  Members of the SG were already WG members.  Only WG members who show up at the first TG meeting get’s to vote in elections.  Anyone else who suddenly shows up must first develop membership in the WG to participate.  However the decision on where to put a PAR developed by an SG is made by the EC.  They could take that same PAR and put it in a new WG.  Suddenly, a whole different process is followed, and everyone get’s instant membership just for showing up at the first meeting.  Is forming a new Task Group really that different?  Why must new TG members first develop WG status while someone walking in for potentially the same task in a new WG gets instant membership?  This does not seem right.

 

So I’m going to get a bit heretical here.  The concept of a Sponsor SG does not exist at the SA level. It is an 802 construct that I feel is very useful.  Most PAR’s for new work (aside from Maintenance and similar activities) are proceeded by a study group.  Most new Working Groups (hope I’m not wrong again) are proceeded by a Study Group.  It seems to me that the 802 SG fills the role of the pre-PAR WG.   The rules in the SG are different in than in the WG and perhaps more appropriate for a group that suddenly appears out of nothing.  I’d rather see all new “WG” transition through a SG phase rather than pop into existence.  I’m sure there are aways exceptions, and I suppose the EC should be able to waive WG into existence for those exceptions.  But I believe it is better for people to become aquainted with each other and the work at hand before appointing a leader.  Having the EC appoint a chair and a little later having elections seems like a better process for me.  So I like this concept of a pre-PAR WG being an SG.  Perhaps I am way off base, but this is my view at the moment.

 

So Buzz, how I would respond to each of your points is as follows:

 

1)     Having an SG as a “Pre-Par” WG I think is a better process.  I would not think it is easy to make intelligent decisions about your leaders and the proper approach to developing your work without any guidance prior to the first WG meeting.  So I think moving slower at the first meeting is better than moving faster (if in fact the group has limited experience with 802).

2)     Why is this so much different than the transition of a SG to a TG?  If it is people involved are going to change so much, then a Task Group should permit anyone to become a member at their first meeting too.  I don’t think this is what we want, and I don’t accept that the membership in the change over from an SG to a WG changes that radically in general.  If so, they should be stuck with the same rules as for a SG transitioning to a TG.

3)     Agreed.  But we still need to guard against abuse as a community.  I believe in flexibility.  But there is such a thing as too much flexability.  We need a balance, and right now I feel that balance is not to base initial membership on the first meeting.  I’m not sure why this would be considered more flexible than some other rules.

4)     Again, the folks joining a new task group also are developing a new context for a new task.  And yet they can live within the requirements of prior establishment of membership.  I don’t see why new WG could not live with the same requirement given the existence of a Pre-WG SG.

 

 

 

Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)              Thu 4/10/2003 10:20 PM

 

Ken,

 

So I guess the first question is where do Working Groups come from?  My own opinion is that our rules are somewhat lacking in terms of a process by which WG’s are formed.  For that matter, they are equally lacking in terms of the process followed to restart a WG.  Off hand it appears that they simply pop into existence by a vote of the EC.  But for sure Working Groups should only exist if they have at least one assigned task to do.  Normally we say a WG without an active PAR goes into Hibernation.  However if we look at SA Standards Board Operations Manual we find:

 

5.2 Project authorization

No formal activity shall take place after six months from the day of the first meeting of the working group

without formal submittal of a PAR to the IEEE-SA Standards Board and assignment of a project number (see

5.1.2).

 

6.1.1 Project Authorization Request (PAR)

As part of the initial PAR procedure, the committee or working group shall appoint a chair (or official

reporter) who shall sign a Copyright Agreement acknowledging that the proposed standard constitutes a

“work made for hire” as defined by the Copyright Act, and that as to any work not so defined, any rights or

interest in the copyright to the standards publication is transferred to the IEEE.

 

 

So clearly their intent is that the WG comes before the PAR.  This presents a bit of a chicken and egg problem.  In my recollection within 802, the only way a PAR comes into existence these days is by first having a Study Group study the matter.  If that SG develops a draft PAR, and the EC determines a new WG is needed to pursue that PAR, “POP” the WG comes into existence.  In my mind the SG plays the role of the pre-PAR WG.  I don’t believe the SA is cognizant of SG’s or gives them any status.  These seem to be an 802 unique thing (though I could be wrong).  However, I would not normally expect a WG to come into existence without first a debate as to where the work belongs, and an EC SG to at least determine if the work is appropriate for 802.  Apparently none of these steps occurred for 802.10, which surprises me.  I guess there could be such strong consensus when the issue was first raised to the EC that there was no need for an EC level SG, and the WG could simply pop into existence.  My own preference would be that a WG not come into existence until at least one PAR has been well defined for it to work on.  However, if a WG were to pop into existence without a PAR, I would hope that except for electing officers, they would initially operate in SG mode to develop a PAR, since they can’t exist for long without one.  And I would hope that all the members of the WG were members of the SG, or else why would they be there?  Can their be a Task Group without a PAR?  Near as I can tell our rules don’t really deal with Task Groups either.  So frankly, I am confused.

 

Could you provide more details on the formation of 802.10?  How did you get to your first PAR?

 

 

 

Rigsbee, Everett O [everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]           Thu 4/10/2003 4:20 PM

 

Matt,  Where I sincerely appreciate your attempting to follow the intent of the framers of the Bylaws, I think you may be making a assumptive error in believing that the reason for the start-up rule was one of convenience or oversight, rather than design.  My recollection of the intent as discussed and agreed during the drafting of the rule centered on the following primary points: 

 

1.  In order to begin the work of the new Working Group, it is necessary to have bona fide members who can elect officers and participate in votes on early substantive matters to help set the course and future direction of activities.  Early consensus of the WG participants allows them to move forward expeditiously, and begin to focus on the issues where the real work needs to be done.  

 

2.  The make-up and character of those officially committing (by their attendance at the 1st official session) to participate in the work defined by the PAR, as approved, can change dramatically from that of the Study Group participants and that therefore basing membership requirements on prior Study Group participation might very well cause an unfair bias to the early membership and control of the committee that could lead to major problems and power struggles further down the road.  Indeed where there has been shown to be a division of a large Group into two or more diametrically opposing factions, the tendency has been to divide the group and let each faction pursue its preferred direction, and let the market and ongoing support determine the eventual winner.  One has only to look back at 802’s history to see several cases where serious technology splits lead to several standards, which ultimately failed to win enough market share to survive in the long-term (e.g. 802.4, 802.5, 802.6, 802.9, 802.12, 802.14, and FDDI to name a few).  

 

3.  WGs in start-up mode have many problems to deal with and it is the make-up of the actual participant group that will shape the tone and character of the Group.  Each 802 WG tends to have its own “culture” and style.  What works perfectly for one WG, may be anathema for another.  So we have to be willing to allow the actual participant set to establish its own culture & traditions; no “One-Size-Fits-All” set of rules will do the job here.  Diversity is the rule, rather than the exception.  Our rules need to establish a common framework that is necessary and sufficient to achieve meaningful results, but there must be plenty of latitude to permit the diversity which has made 802 such a rich and productive environment. 

 

4.  The intent of the 3-meeting rule is to ensure that those joining an established WG have sufficient time and experience to learn the history, culture and style of the WG before becoming an active participant.  However, in the case of a new WG, they will be establishing their culture and style as they go along (under tutelage from other WGs), so there is no need for the learning period.  Later-comers, however, will need the time to “catch up” on the history and style of the WG as set by the original participants.  The 3-meeting rule was also viewed as a serious deterrent to factions attempting to bring in a horde of supporters to influence the outcome of votes during a single session, since it would require a lot more cost and pre-planning under the rule.  So far it seems to be working well in that respect.  The fact that our rules allow sufficient latitude that there are occasional disputes over interpretation is a necessary evil to permitting the diversity we want and need.  This is one of the primary reasons we need an SEC:  to help resolve such disputes on a fair and equitable basis.  We just need to be ready to step up when the time arrives. 

 

I recollect no mention of any convenience or bookkeeping factors in selecting the start-up rules.  The players get to choose the game and adjust the rules to fit their needs.  If there is too great a division of large opposing factions to permit forward progress, then it is better to divide into independent groups that can each move forward independently.  Splinter factions tend to find a mainstream camp to join and work with. 

 

 

Joanne Wilson [joanne@arraycomm.com]          Thu 4/10/2003 4:10 PM

 

Bob,

 

I just wanted to weigh in on this discussion because your comments do not reflect my experience in the MBWA  Study Group.

First, as you may recall, the MBWA group was initially chartered under 802.16 and then was rechartered as an

ECSG.  We met at 4 times in May, July, September and November 2002.  I attended each of these sessions and my company

had from 2 to 4 people participating in the meetings throughout this period.  The reason that we had up to 4 people

attending some of those sessions was because the discussions were of a technical nature and we needed to have people

from our research area attend.  Specifically, to develop the PAR we needed to address the distinctness of the project

as compared to work within other standards bodies, the desired characteristics of the new standard and the technical

feasibility of achieving the objectives.  My take from your comments is that other groups undertake a much lower

level of technical deliberation in the development of other PARS.   I don't know if that is true, our group may have been somewhat

unique.  Additionally, we had 2 people (myself included) attend the Meeting 0 of working group.  (I note that the discussion thus far

about membership does not take into consider attendence at Meeting 0.)   So, while I agree that a new working group should

commence quickly toward doing the even more technical work of writing a standard, at least my experience in the MBWA ECSG is

that it was not of an administrative or marketing nature. 

 

Having attended five IEEE 802 sessions prior to the "initial 802.20 session" you can imagine that I am dismayed that rules allow for 802.20

membership (and officer positions obtained) by people who had never until that point attended an 802 session, who don't understand

what the PAR is and isn't, and who don't know the 802 standards development process.  I found the study group process that creates a

PAR to be an exceptional one that should provide a new working group with a "running start" toward successfully achieving its objectives.

It's also a process that is unique to the IEEE -- so if you hadn't  participated in the process you'd have missed the substantial amount of deliberation

that went into deciding on the  PAR which is binding on the new working group.   There's an additional twist that has not been taken into

consideration.  A new PAR can establish a new Task Group within an existing working group.  One cannot establish membership in a new

Task Group under an existing Working Group in one meeting.  One could, however, be able to establish membership in that Task Group if

they had participated in the prior Study Group process.

 

It should also be noted that the Study Group experience was invaluable for new participants in IEEE 802.  Having

particiated in TIA TR45, 3GPP2 and ITU-R meetings, I can tell you that IEEE 802 meetings are conducted very differently from those groups.

Experience in other SDOs doesn't make you an expert on standards development in IEEE 802.  In fact, it may be toward ones detriment

because it establishes an incorrect belief about how the process is expected to run in IEEE 802.   Your argument that participation in the

Study Group gives unfair advantage to new working group members could also apply to new members of an existing working

group, for example at the initiation of a new project.  Why should existing members have the unfair advantage of membership while

new members have to wait several meetings to establish membership?  I don't see any difference.

 

Additionally, I note that some of the new people in 802 want to revisit issues that were debated and resolved in the Study Group

process.  Therefore, it seems to me that 802 should do more to encourage participation in the Study Group that defines the PAR

that creates the a new working group.  Gambling, in my humble opinion, would be to not participate in the Study Group process

in an area that is of interest to my company -- particularly when the Working Group is required to achieve the requirements

established in the PAR.

 

I also note your last comment, that the 3 session rule "is in place after the technical work has begun to ensure that the participant
is familiar with the work that has been done thus far, and to prevent stuffing the ballot box when individual contentious issues arise."
I believe that also argues for applying something similar to the 3 session rule, e.g. taking into consideration participation in the

Study Group, for establishing membership in new working groups.  That is, unless you believe that leadership and organization of the

work are not of sufficient importance that ballot stuffing should be discouraged.

 

I hope you will take these thoughts into consideration in deciding on how to revise the P&P on WG membership.

 

 

 

Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [carlstevenson@agere.com]          Thu 4/10/2003 4:01 PM

 

I generally agree with Mat.

 

 

Bill Quackenbush [billq@attglobal.net]             Thu 4/10/2003 3:50 PM

 

Gentle people,

 

I believe that in some of the recent emails on the rules for membership

in a new WG/TWG that the authors are continuing the sloppy/incorrect use

of the words "meeting" and "session".

 

Section 8, Chapter IV of 10th edition of Robert's Rules of Order

provides the following definitions.

 

"A meeting of an assembly is a single official gathering of its members

in one room or area to transact business for a length of time during

which there is no cessation of proceedings and the members do not

separate, unless for a short recess, as defined below. (For modification

of the "one-room-or-area" requirement when the bylaws authorize meeting

by videoconference or teleconference, see pages 482-83.)  Depending on

the business to be transacted, a meeting may last from a few minutes to

several hours."

 

"A session of an assembly, unless otherwise defined by the bylaws or

governing rules of the particular organization or body, is a meeting or

a series of connected meetings devoted to a single order of business,

program, agenda, or announced purpose, in which - when there is more

than one meeting - each succeeding meeting is scheduled with a view to

continuing business at the point where it was left off at the previous meeting."

 

In short, 802 WGs/TAGs have morning, afternoon and evening meetings and

Interim and Plenary sessions.  The sessions are comprised of multiple

morning, afternoon and evening meetings.

 

PLEASE use these definitions of meetings and sessions.  Otherwise I, and

I suspect others, have no idea what you mean when you use these words.

 

 

Reza Arefi [reza@arraycomm.com]          Thu 4/10/2003 2:16 PM

 

Bob,

I found your comments in the following message about characterizing the nature of the work in a study group being "administration and marketing" quite insensitive. Perhaps you haven't recently participated in a study group. Just take a look at the activities and discussions of recent SGs including MBWA ECSG and the Link Sec ECSG for a wealth of technical discussions. I am sure SG members have a different view than yours about the nature of their group.

 

In regards to your other comments about participation of companies, in real world if a company is interested in the topic of an SG, they will actively participate in the SG since the SG is where the project is being defined (through PAR). I don't think I need to give you examples of how many companies started during the SG work and continued on the WG in many 802 projects. Given your many years in 802, it was quite unexpected of you to make those arguments.

 

 

 

 

  Ken Alonge [kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]          Thu 4/10/2003 2:10 PM

 

Hi All-

 

I'd like to throw my 2 cents in here and stir the pot a little more.  In Mat's second paragraph below, he alludes to a Working Group evolving from a Study Group (which happens to be the method by which WGs have come into existence in the recent past) and that a WG doesn't pop into existence.  In fact, 802.10 did not evolve from a SG -- it "popped" into existence from work that began outside 802.  At the very first meeting of .10 everyone that attended was granted voting rights, and the Chair (who had not previously participated in 802) had Exec voting rights at the next Plenary.  Is it the expectation that this will NEVER happen again in 802?  

 

Unless there is an "unwritten rule" that everyone on the current Exec knows (except me, since I haven't been around in a while) that ALL new WGs will ONLY come from SGs that have been spun off from existing WGs (and therefore people have been building up credits toward voting rights in the manner specified in the P&P), then I think the Exec needs to keep the current practice of awarding membership to all who attend the first meeting of a new WG. (Sorry for the run-on paragraph.)  If this is really the case, then I think there may be some shortsightedness on the part of the Exec, as to where new 802 projects might come from.

 

 

 

Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)              Thu 4/10/2003 1:46 PM

 

Bob,

 

I think I now understand your reasoning better.  However, I don’t think I personally agree with it.  Your last line is the one that I find of greatest interest.  At no point is their more potential to stuff the ballot box than at the first meeting, particularly for setting up the officers of the group.  Those officers will then set the tone even if all the “initial” members go away.  If we must guard against this in future sessions, certainly we should guard against it at the first.

 

Regarding the flow from SG to WG, I don’t believe the SG goals are purely admin / marketing, or that these functions ceases once the WG begins.  The goals being developed in the SG are technical as well, and require technical input.  I see nothing wrong with expecting the technical people most interested to participate in the development of these goals.  In terms of rewarding the people most interested in starting an activity up with early membership, yes I do think that is appropriate.  We should encourage people to participate in the development of an activity and not just wait on the sidelines.  Also, I would question the wisdom of any group that closed out the potential for proposals after only 2 WG plenary sessions.  Generally I believe discussion should be open longer than that.  I could see a shorter term for a maintenance TG, but if you are starting a whole new WG, I think a reasonable amount of due diligence is appropriate.  Regardless, the Chair can always waive people in, and most chairs allow folks to participate in discussions even without membership.  

 

Anyway, we clearly have some opposing opinions here, and I’m not sure of a resolution.  Somehow I believe we want more requirements for becoming a member than just showing up at the first meeting.  Hopefully we can come up with some compromise ideas.

 

 

Reza Arefi [reza@arraycomm.com]          Thu 4/10/2003 1:13 PM

 

Mat,

Your explanations are great. I think we are on the same page but for the interim issue.

 

Let's call the meetings P1, I2, P3, I4, P5, I6, P7, etc., where P is plenary and I is interim. The numbers are sequential session numbers.

 

As you said, "if there are no interims and someone does not show up at the 2nd plenary session, they WILL lose their membership" but there will be an interim in the case of 802.20 and one can replace that with the plenary in July and stay a member until next March without attending any other meeting. I know the elections will be in P3 and they better not miss it but the rules should be written for a general case. Other groups won't have elections in their P3 session.

 

The window of 4 plenary for a new WG spans from P1 to P7, which is a year. A person attending P1 and then disappearing will only lose membership at P7 (a year later). This could create two problems if a lot of people do this:

1- quorum at the I sessions

2- WG ballot return ratio

So, I think this in itself is a problem that needs to be fixed.

 

Back to the Interim issue and 802.20: If there is an I2, then according to current rules, you can't revoke membership upon absence in P3 if someone attends I2, UNLESS the rules clearly say that you need to attend AT LEAST P3 in order to stay a member. Or perhaps all of them (P1, I2, P3). What do you think?

 

 

 

 

Bob O'Hara [bob@airespace.com]           Thu 4/10/2003 12:22 PM

 

Mat,

 

I think my reasoning is pretty clear, the character of the organization changes distinctly between being a study group (administration and marketing) and being a working group (technical work and production of a standard).  I believe this is the reason for the immediacy of membership at the first working group meeting, that the first working group meeting is where the first surge of technical experts will show up.  I do not want to delay the work of receiving, reviewing, debating, and selecting technical proposals until the third meeting, if that work can be done more expeditiously.  I don't believe that the rule is as it is because it was the easiest path.  But, there are some present that were also present when he rule was drafted.  I am sure they will offer their recollection.

 

Unduly delaying the membership of the technical experts that arrive at the first working group meeting gives those people/organizations willing and able to risk the time and money to attend the study group meetings disproportionate representation in the early stages of the working group.  Because there is no guarantee that a working group will be formed for every study group in operation, many companies wait to send people until the working group is a certainty. 

 

Do we want our membership rules to reward the gamblers with the officer positions and control of all working group decisions for the first two meetings, including, potentially, adoption of operating rules, selection of task group organization, election of task group chairs, selection of document editors, and possibly even selection of the initial technical proposal?  That is even more of an abuse of the (proposed) rule than has been observed with the current rule.

 

Don't make the cure worse than the disease.

 

To answer your question about the 3 session rule, it is in place after the technical work has begun to ensure that the participant is familiar with the work that has been done thus far, and to prevent stuffing the ballot box when individual contentious issues arise.

 

 

 

 

Reza Arefi [reza@arraycomm.com]          Thu 4/10/2003 10:53 AM

 

Mat,

 

About the 2 out of 4 rule: What I was trying to say was that it does not provide a fast roll off for those who just show up at the first meeting to see what's going on and then decide not to continue. Applying it after the second plenary session won't solve the problem UNLESS you specify what happens if someone doesn't show up at the second plenary session. There is also the issue of the interim between the first and the second plenary sessions. Would attending that count in any ways, or affect one's voting rights in the second plenary?

 

I also fully support your position about counting SG attendance towards the WG membership. The "3 session" rule could be applied here. This helps the WG to get started to work immediately. This way, the new WG doesn't even have to waste an interim session before its first plenary session.

 

 

 

 

Tony Jeffree [tony@jeffree.co.uk]             Thu 4/10/2003 2:39 AM

 

Mat -

Again, very well put. The only thing I would add is that part of the intent of the 3 session rule is to avoid granting voting status to people that just show up for one or two meetings; this avoids having them hang around for a long time on the voting roster when they have no intention of further participation. One aspect of voting membership that seems to escape many people is that it is not a privilege, it is a duty. People that are granted a vote in a WG are expected to take an active part in the work of the WG (for example, this is why they are required to respond to at least 2 out of 3 WG ballots in order to maintain their vote). A person that shows sufficient commitment to meet the 3 session rule is rather more likely to carry out the duties of membership than one that just shows up for a single session.

 

 

 

 

Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)              Wed 4/9/2003 10:42 PM

 

Bob,

 

I think you at least partially misunderstand my intent in the changes I proposed.  Your arguments seem to focus strongly on the officers of the group, and not the general membership.  So let me ask you this.  Why do we have the “3 session rule” that normally applies to achieving membership?  If one meeting is enough for anyone to follow what is going on technically, and understand the procedures in place, why don’t we just let every expert act as a member the moment they walk in the door?

 

A WG is not a virtual particle popping in and out of a vacuum.  On day one, it has a context that it evolved in and is continuing to evolve in.  That context is the Study Group it evolved from, and 802 itself.  To properly participate even in an election, I believe participants need to have a solid sense of what they are there to do, and how it is normally done.  Not to mention some level of familiarity with the candidates.  I don’t think one meeting or even one session is enough.  And I don’t think the creators of the 3 session rule did either.  While the EC may be able to mentor the leadership of a new WG, I don’t think they can effectively mentor the membership itself if it is completely green along with the leadership.

 

 I firmly believe that the creators of the “first meeting” rule chose to let everyone in because it was convenient and easy to do the book keeping.  I am sure they saw the potential flaws, but presumed those potentials were generally remote and could be neglected.  They probably did not believe these remote possibilities justified the inclusion of a more complex initial membership process.  I think we now see that those potentials are larger than may have originally been anticipated.  I for one now see a need for a more complex start up process which better preserves the intent of the 3 session rule for gaining membership.  So again I ask, in your mind why have the 3 session rule if 3 sessions are not required to participate intelligently in a group?

 

 

 

Bob O'Hara [bob@airespace.com]           Wed 4/9/2003 1:30 PM

 

Mat,

 

I vote DISAPPROVE on this ballot.

 

I believe that including any criterion related to experience with LMSC, its working groups, or study groups as a prerequisite to holding office is a path to constant judgment calls by the SEC as to how much experience is enough, what experience is relevant, and how recent that experience must be. So, must an officer candidate hold a working group office prior to running a study group, in order to be qualified? Which positions? How long?

If we are going to require an experience criterion to be met, I want it to be explicit, concrete, and measurable. It must NOT be subject to interpretation.  Given that the current proposed change lacks this specificity:

In 5.1.3.1 delete:

"In no case should a person who is not a member in good standing of IEEE 802 by the end of the first session of establishment of a WG be considered to Chair a WG, as they are unlikely to have sufficient familiarity with the Policies and Procedures of IEEE 802, as well as the IEEE 802 Standards Association (IEEE-SA), and IEEE Computer Society."

and replace it with:

"Candidates for the positions of working group chair and vice chair(s) shall be members of the working group."

I believe that the SEC has the obligation to mentor the officers that are chosen by the working groups. It is the membership of the working group that is best situated to evaluate the qualifications of its leadership. The SEC, at best, is second guessing the working group decisions.

I also don't agree with the substitution of study group participation for credit toward working group membership.  This is a hack to try to give preference to study group participants, on the theory that they have more "experience" with 802 by having attended a study group meeting or two and, thus, would make better officers.  Or, possibly, this is a misguided attempt to prevent "loading" the membership at the first meeting and electing a slate that is "distasteful" to some constituency.  This is unsubstantiated. 

The nature of the work of a study group and a working group is fundamentally different.  The task of a study group is basically administrative and marketing, to get a PAR and 5 criteria document approved.  The task of a working group (at least initially) is mostly technical, evaluating technical proposals and writing a standard.  The types and numbers of people that would attend the study group and working group meetings can be expected to be quite different.  Why should the working group members have their choices of officer candidates limited to those that chose to perform the administrative and marketing tasks of a study group, when the character of the work changes dramatically at the formation of the working group?

In 5.1.3.1 reverse the deletion of the first sentence of this clause (i.e., put it back).  This is clear and concise.  The deletion is completely ineffective, since all one has to do at the first meeting is present a letter of intention to participate to the chair, in order to gain instant membership according to the sentence that is proposed to start 5.1.3.1.    Also delete the first two sentences in the second paragraph.

 

Clause

Comment Type
(Editorial of Substantive)
(E or S)

Part of No Vote? (Y or N)

Comment / Explaination

Recommended Change

5.1.3.1

S

Y

Elimination of membership for those joining at the first meeting of the WG is not acceptable.

Undelete the first sentence and delete the first two sentences of the second paragraph.

5.1.3.1

S

Y

Evaluation of the qualifications of WG officers by the SEC is a morass we don't want to enter.

Replace the sentence "In no case should a person who is not a member in good standing of IEEE 802 by the end of the first session of establishment of a WG be considered to Chair a WG, as they are unlikely to have sufficient familiarity with the Policies and Procedures of IEEE 802, as well as the IEEE 802 Standards Association (IEEE-SA), and IEEE Computer Society." with "Candidates for the positions of working group chair and vice chair(s) shall be members of the working group."

5.1.3.1

S

Y

There is a substantial difference between "attending" and "participating"

Replace "attending at least 75% of the meetings in a session" with "participating in at least 75% of the meetings in a session"

 

 

Mike Takefman [tak@cisco.com]            Wed 4/2/2003 5:12 PM

 

some comments on the ballot. I did not use your xls format

as I wanted to start some discussion.

 

I support the overall objectives of the ballot but I have

a few nits.

 

My presumption at the moment would be to vote disapprove

with comments. Reasonable disposition of my comments would

change my vote to approve.

 

 

1) Original text is

One duly constituted interim Working Group or task group meeting may be

substituted for the Working Group meetings at one of the two Plenary sessions

(See 5.1.3.5 Meetings and Participation).

 

I suggest the following single word change.

 

One duly constituted interim Working Group or task group SESSION may be

substituted for the Working Group meetings at one of the two Plenary

sessions (See 5.1.3.5 Meetings and Participation).

 

Reading your proposed change would mean that interims are not

really useful in terms of gaining membership since only a single

meeting out of the Interim session could be used to buttress

the individuals lack of attendance at a Plenary session.

 

I believe the intent is that if someone attends 2 full sessions

and meets the 75% criteria (at least one of which is a Plenary

then they should be eligible for membership).

 

2) Original text is

In no case should a person who is not a member in good standing

of IEEE 802 by the end of the first session of establishment of

a WG be considered to Chair a WG, as they are unlikely to have sufficient

familiarity with the Policies and Procedures of IEEE 802, as well

as the IEEE 802 Standards Association (IEEE-SA), and IEEE Computer Society.

 

I suggest the following change as I prefer a positive definition

as compared to a negative one. Also, I have been more explicit

in defining what members are acceptable. I.E. current members of

802 and new members who have participated in the SG phase of a

sufficient duration to be members of the new WG. I

felt the old language was unclear on the second point.

 

The Chair of the WG must be either: a member in good standing

of IEEE 802; or has met the requirements for membership of the new

WG. This insures the Chair has sufficient familiarity with the

Policies and Procedures of IEEE 802, as well as the IEEE 802 Standards

Association (IEEE-SA), and IEEE Computer Society.

 

3) Original text is

Working Group members shall participate in the consensus process

in a manner consistent with their professional expert opinion

as individuals, and not as organizational (industry or company) representatives.

 

While people acting as individuals is the ideal, I think we

all know that this is not always the case. I do not have an

well thought out addition, but I throw this out there for

comment by other people. Add this following the paragraph

(as part of the paragraph)

 

All members shall announce the organization they represent, and

in the case of agents (eg. consultants) their client organization.

 

 

 

Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com]             Fri 3/28/2003 8:02 AM

 

Attached is my comment on the spreadsheet.  I have registered my vote as non-voter.

 

Clause

Comment Type
(Editorial of Substantive)
(E or S)

Part of No Vote? (Y or N)

Comment / Explaination

Recommended Change

5.1.3.1

S

Y

Ex-802 participants with significant knowledge of a new area we are looking at may start re-attending 802 specifically to join a new group.  It is possible that they have the expertise, and detailed knowledge of IEEE 802 policies and procedures.  Modify the text to allow for this possibilty.

Delete: "unlikely to have sufficient familiarity with the Policies and Procedures of IEEE 802, as well as the IEEE 802 Standards Association (IEEE-SA), and IEEE Computer Society."   and change the words "who is not a member in good standing in IEEE 802,..." to "who has never established membership and is not presently a member in good standing in IEEE 802,..."  or words to this effect.  Also add " Individuals who are not presently members in good standing in IEEE 802, but who have been previously, will need to submit a letter of intent to the 802 Chair indicating their plan for continued participation in the new working group prior to their consideration for approval as a WG chair by the SEC" or words to this effect. 

 

 

 

Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com]             Tue 3/25/2003 3:41 PM

 

Mat, I have one proposed change to your "proposed rules" based on the scenario of someone "coming out of retirement" to chair a new WG.  If we look at the present situation for 802.20, your rules could bar Ken Alonge, the chair of the hibernating 802.10 from becoming the 802.20 chair because he would be "unlikely to have sufficient familiarity with the Policies and Procedures of IEEE 802, as well as the IEEE 802 Standards Association (IEEE-SA), and IEEE Computer Society."  Obviously, that would not be the case for Ken. 

 

My recommendation would be to change the words "who is not a member in good standing in IEEE 802,..." to "who has never established membership or is not presently a member in good standing in IEEE 802,..."  or words to this effect.

 

 

Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)              Tue 3/25/2003 7:05 PM

 

Robert,

 

I agree with the sentiment, but not necessarily the specifics.   I think the real point I am trying to make is the Chair should also be a member.  You should not elect someone who is not a member as chair.  The issue of a hibernating working group is a problem that has to be fixed, and my current P&P change does not address it.  During the ballot I hope someone will bring this up and propose changes to address it.  Personally, if the hibernating chair has been keeping up with things, I don’t have a problem waiving them in.  But I think they should be formally waived in.  That is, they should be appointed by Paul on an interim basis.  Keep in mind that normally WG under go confirmation elections every 2 years.  If a Working Group has been hibernating, they haven’t had elections.  So, I tend to think elections of some sort (that will probably confirm the appointment of the chair) should be held.  I still believe the chair should be a member by normal means.  However, participation in the EC counts for participation in a WG.  So if the hibernating chair is keeping up, this counts.  However, the bottom line is what good is a chair without any members?  We need a restart process for a hibernating WG which develops a membership.  I think the chair should achieve membership through whatever process we define for other members.  I don’t think my current rule would prevent Paul from appointing say Ken as an interim chair.  But once the WG is up and running again, if they have not held elections in more than 2 years I think they should have elections anyway.

 

Honestly, these are just some rambling thoughts.  I don’t intend to change any text in my currently proposed rules change, since it was approved for distribution in its current form.  I hope to start the ballot by the end of the week.  What I ask is that you resurface this issue at that time so it get incorporated in the comments on the ballot. Then we can have a more formal discussion.   It is a little tricky for me to track pre-ballot comments, so I’d like to reintroduce this once the ballot begins.

 

 

Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com]             Tue 3/25/2003 3:41 PM

 

Mat, I have one proposed change to your "proposed rules" based on the scenario of someone "coming out of retirement" to chair a new WG.  If we look at the present situation for 802.20, your rules could bar Ken Alonge, the chair of the hibernating 802.10 from becoming the 802.20 chair because he would be "unlikely to have sufficient familiarity with the Policies and Procedures of IEEE 802, as well as the IEEE 802 Standards Association (IEEE-SA), and IEEE Computer Society."  Obviously, that would not be the case for Ken. 

 

My recommendation would be to change the words "who is not a member in good standing in IEEE 802,..." to "who has never established membership or is not presently a member in good standing in IEEE 802,..."  or words to this effect.

 

 

 

Ken Alonge [kennyg698@yahoo.com]              Fri 3/14/2003 11:28 AM

 

Mat-

I think two of the big differences is that:

1)  for a hibernating working group you have a Chair who is familiar with the 802 processes

2) there will be two classes of "members" of the un-hibernated group at the first few meetings -- those that participated in the group before hibernation, and those that joined when the group came out of hibernation. p; Maybe some accommodation needs to be made for the former class to have voting rights immediately.

Also, the Chair in this case will need the ability to make unencumbered motions (i.e., not have to seek out Exec members to move and second WG motions) to the Exec for items concerning the un-hibernated working group's tasks (e.g., PARs, balloting, etc).

Just some thoughts - Ken

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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