RE: [802SEC] idea on new rules for membership in startup WGs
As we discussed the idea of "slow" start for WG membership is feasible and
avoids many of the problems of the "one shot" approach. Tony has some valid
points these can be fine tuned.
With respect to DJ's comment and your interpretation of the "WG Chair" field
in the PAR. This field is an invariant - whether we are dealing with an ECSG
or SG in the WG. I believe that field is filled in when transmitted by the
Sponsor to NesCom. I believe we are better off leaving initial appointment
to the LMSC/LMSC Chair. Usually the LMSC has appointed the SG chair. Sure
this field could be used to "communicate" the desires of the SG to the EC,
but we may then be setting ourselves up for a vote in the last SG meeting on
how to fill out that field - in essence turning it into a pseudo-election -
with anyone who walks in voting. I believe it is reasonable to trust the
LMSC until committee members get to know each other.
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 11:32 AM
To: Johnston, DJ
Subject: RE: [802SEC] idea on new rules for membership in startup WGs
I appreciate your views on this and found them to be valuable during
the SEC discussion in Friday.
On the question of the initial WG Chair, the P&P says at one point
that the appointment is made by the EC; at another point, it says
that the appointment is made by the LMSC Chair.
In any case, the SG does offer direct guidance in the proposed Chair
of the WG. It does so by entering "Name of Working Group Chair" on
the PAR it submits.
>I find a lot of merit in that proposal also. It appears to address the
>concerns I vocalised to the EC last week and I suspect will address the
>concerns that led to the proposed membership rules changes in the first
>It leaves open to the LMSC chair whether to choose to appoint the SG
>chair as the interim chair or appoint someone else. I'm not sure whether
>this is an ideal situation. We might want to give some guidance in the
>rules, or allow the SG to give guidance on who the interim chair should
>Chair, IEEE 802 Handoff ECSG
>Email : email@example.com
>Tel : 503 380 5578 (Mobile)
>Tel : 503 264 3855 (Office)
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 6:12 PM
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
>> Subject: RE: [802SEC] idea on new rules for membership in startup WGs
>> I like your suggestion. I heard a similar suggestion from
>> Jerry on the
>> ride to the Airport (Carl was there too). I would be happy to support
>> it. I guess we could restart the process next plenary.
>> 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: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:email@example.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 2:24 AM
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Subject: [802SEC] idea on new rules for membership in startup WGs
>> Dear ExCom,
>> On Friday, I had some stimulating discussions with Geoff, Jerry, and
>> Mark on what would be a good set of membership rules for startup WGs.
>> Some things said during the rules debate also played a role in my
>> thinking. After reviewing the current rules again, I now have a very
> > definite idea of a set of changes that would satisfy my concerns and
> > would, I believe, also satisfy the other concerns I've heard. This
> > proposal is simple, and it is philosophically compatible with our
>> existing membership rules.
>> Here is my proposal:
>> (a) In 22.214.171.124, delete the first sentence and the following word
>> ("All persons participating in the initial meeting of the Working
>> Group become members of the Working Group. Thereafter,").
>> (b) At the end of that first paragraph of 126.96.36.199, add the following:
>> "In a new WG or TAG, all registered attendees may vote until such
>> time as the first WG or TAG memberships are established."
>> (c) In 5.1.2, change "Initial appointments, and temporary
>> appointments to fill vacancies due to resignations or removals for
>> cause, may be made by the Chair of the LMSC, and shall be valid until
>> the end of the next Plenary session" to:
>> "Initial appointments, and temporary appointments to fill vacancies
>> due to resignations or removals for cause, may be made by the Chair
>> of the LMSC. Temporary appointments shall be valid until the end of
>> the next Plenary session. Initial appointments shall be valid until
>> the end of the Plenary session in which the first WG or TAG
>> memberships are established. Officer elections shall be scheduled for
>> that session."
>> Normally, the sequence would be:
>> (1) WG initiated at Plenary #0. Interim Chair appointed.
>> (2) WG holds interim session. Everyone votes.
>> (3) WG meets at Plenary #1. Everyone votes.
>> (4) WG holds interim session. Everyone votes.
>> (5) WG meets at Plenary #2. Membership is attained at start of
>> session by those who have participated in Plenary #1 and in one of
>> the two interims. Only those members vote. Elections are held, and
>> confirmed by EC. Elected officers assume office at end of plenary.
>> Note that this would accommodate the CS rule that "voting privileges
>> shall apply to all eligible attendees at the initial three meetings"
>> (i.e., sessions). However, participation in just one of these three
>> sessions would not suffice for membership. Membership would be earned
>> the normal way, and there would be no elections until there were
>> members. The Interim Chair appointment would become four sessions,
>> instead of two under the current rules.
>> I submit that this system could take a lot of the politics out of the
>> WG startup period, giving the group time to settle.
>> I'd appreciate your thoughts.