Re: [802SEC] +++802 EC Motion+++ LMSC request to BoG forimproving CAG procedures
At 10:05 -0500 04/02/19, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>Dear EC members,
>This is an EC email ballot to make a determination on the below EC
>motion regarding a request to the IEEE SA BoG for improving IEEE SA
>Corporate Advisory Group procedures.
>This is an urgent matter, as the IEEE SA BoG is meeting the morning
>of Feb 27 to discuss the matter and I want to have an EC decision
>completed before then. I will be present at the BoG meeting.
>Since this is an urgent matter and the topic has been available for
>review and comment on the EC reflector since Feb 11 (see
>background material), I am setting the duration of the ballot to
>close the earlier of 9PM EST Feb 25th (6 days) or within 24 hours
>after every member of the EC has cast a definitive vote (approve,
>disapprove or abstain).
>Please direct your responses to the EC reflector with a CC directly
>to me (<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>email@example.com).
>- Paul Nikolich
>Moved: Bob Grow, Second: Tony Jeffree
>The IEEE 802 LAN/MAN standards committee (LMSC) requests the IEEE-SA
>Board of Governors take action to protect the value of IEEE-SA as a
>standards development organization by requiring proper IEEE-SA,
>Corporate Advisory Group (CAG) and working group procedures that:
>1. allow CAG standards sponsorship for truly new standards
>activities that are outside the scope of existing working groups;
>2. allow CAG standards sponsorship for new standards that are not
>effectively amendments to existing standards or projects of active
>3. recognize that working groups must make selections between
>technical alternatives, and prevent the CAG from becoming a
>mechanism that can be used for undermining the decision making
>process of working groups by sponsoring competing projects to
>standards and projects of those working groups;
>4. discriminate between disinterest in a proposed standards project
>and recognize an established working group's position that a
>proposed standards project is within its area of work and that the
>proposed project should not be approved.