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

Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ P&P_Revision_Process



Dissaprove pending resolution of the flurry of comments. I agree with
many of them.

mike

Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
> Just a reminder to everyone that the P&P ballots both end tonight at
> 11:59 EST.  Thanks to those who provided the recent flurry of comments.
>  To those who haven?t done so, please send me you comments today.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Mat
>
>
>
> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> Senior Member Technical Staff
> BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:27 PM
> *To:* Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++
> P&P_Revision_Process
>
>
>
> Mat:
>
>
>
> Disapprove.  I agree with a number of the comments previously submitted.
>
>
>
> 1.  7.1.6.1, item 2 should only apply to active WG/TAGs. and
> consequently sub item a must be changed.  It is less clear to me if the
> priviledge in sub item b should also be restricted to voting members of
> the EC (thus eliminating hibernating WG Chairs and the Member Emeritus)
> from being able to propose except through a voting member.  In the case
> of hibernating members, based on experience, I favor the change (EC
> activity has been far too marginal in the past).  I am less inclined
> because of no experience with the Member Emeritus and expectation of
> consistent and quality participation when Mr. Thompson is in that
> position).   In gereral though, I am willing to trust the EC to squelch
> rules change noise that might come from the non-voting EC members of
> subitem b and therefore only require clarification on subitem a.
>
>
>
> 2.  7.1.6.2, second paragraph.  This is ambiguous and could be
> considered to conflict with RROR and since precidence would apply, it
> would rule out a motion to reconsider without justification.  Delete the
> paragraph.
>
>
>
> 3.  Various -- in mulitple places, I see "members with voting rights" or
> similar text.  All such clarifications would be removed and P&P
> maintenance would be simplified if 7.1.4 simply stated:  "Only members
> of the EC with voting rights are counted in either the numerator or
> denominator in determinating the approval threshold for any EC vote.
> Unless specified otherwise in these P&P all EC votes are in addition
> subject to the following provisions.  Voting is by simple majority of
> yea divided by yea plus nay.  The quroum requirement is at least
> one-half of the Executive Committee voting members present.  The Chair
> only votes to break ties."
>
>
>
> Please note that is is consistent with our practice (e.g., the 0,0,12
> vote where Paul cast the tie breaking vote but per this section, the
> vote should not have passed because of the 12 abstentions), but this
> is a change from the current rule which states "simple majority of
> members present".  We might also consider if the last sentence is
> consistent with our practice where RROR allows the the chair to cast a
> deciding vote (different than breaking a tie).  If this change is
> considered out of scope for the ballot I would recommend:  "Only members
> of the EC with voting rights are counted in either the numerator or
> denominator in determinating the approval threshold for any EC vote.
> Unless specified otherwise in these P&P all EC votes are in addition
> subject to the following provisions.  Voting is by simple majority of
> voting members present.  The quroum requirement is at least one-half of
> the Executive Committee voting members present.  The Chair only votes to
> break ties."
>
>
>
> 4.  7.1.6.4, second paragraph.  Change to read "...shall require at
> least a two-thirds affirmative EC vote, and will ..."  If my preferred
> change to 7.1.4 is rejected, I agree with Bob O'Hara's comment about
> removing "voting", if my change is accepted, Bob's change is unnecessary.
>
>
>
> 5.  7.1.6.4, second and third  paragraphs.  Effectivity of the change is
> ambiguous.  If there is no opposition or comment must the change be
> presented for another ratifying vogte of the EC at a plenary?  This
> paragraph could apply to the electronic vote of the first paragraph, not
> necessarily a meeting vote at the next plenary meeting.  The thrid
> paragraph has a redundant sentence with the second paragraph.
>
>
>
> 6.  7.1.6.5  There needs to be some recourse when members of the EC
> question if a change was truly editorial, which can occur with
> formatting changes (e.g., changing prose into a list occasionally does
> this but might just be considered an editorial change.
>
>
>
> --Bob
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] *On Behalf Of *Sherman,
> Matthew J. (US SSA)
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 01, 2005 5:48 AM
> *To:* STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++
> P&P_Revision_Process
>
> All,
>
>
>
> As a reminder, this ballot closes on Tuesday!  So far I have received 1
> approve vote, and no comments.  Please take a little time to review this
> and forward any comments you might have to myself and the reflector.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Mat
>
>
>
> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> Senior Member Technical Staff
> BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org] *On Behalf Of *Sherman,
> Matthew J. (US SSA)
> *Sent:* Friday, December 03, 2004 11:59 PM
> *To:* STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> *Subject:* [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ P&P_Revision_Process
>
>
>
> Dear EC members,
>
> Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on the
> LMSC P&P Revision Process. This ballot was approved at the Friday
> November 19, 2004 EC meeting. The text is identical to that presented at
> the meeting.  The purpose and rationale for the ballot are as given in
> the attached ballot document.
>
> Ballot Duration:  12/5/2004 - 1/5/2004 @ 11:59 PM EST
>
> WG/TAG chairs, please distribute this P&P revision ballot to your
> groups, and invite them to comment through you.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
>
> Mat
>
> <<802.0-P&P_Revision_Process-P&P_Revision_ballot.doc>>
>
> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>
> Vice Chair, IEEE 802
>
> Senior Member Technical Staff
>
> BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
>
> Mail Stop 11B01
>
> 164 Totowa Road
>
> Wayne, NJ 07474-0975
>
> Office: +1 973.633.6344
>
> Cell: +1 973.229.9520
>
> Fax:    +1 973.633.6004
>
> email:  matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
> <mailto:matthew.sherman@baesystems.com>
>
> ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv. ---------- This email is
> sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is
> maintained by Listserv.
>
> ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.


--
Michael Takefman              tak@cisco.com
Distinguished Engineer,       Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399       cell:613-220-6991

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.