Re: [802SEC] Current Resolution on the 'WG Membership & Meetings' P&P Revision Ballot
Tony-
This is being driven by AudCom who are trying to heavily nudge WGs into
conformance with their model P&P.
This is not unlike the rewrite of our own P&P to get them to follow the
form of the Sponsor P&P (a project that I was not enthusiastic about)
Sigh,
Geoff
At 06:09 AM 10/3/2005 , Tony Jeffree wrote:
>Mat -
>
>I will not be able to support these changes - unfortunate, because there
>is much in here that I do support and would like to see approved ASAP.
>
>However, somewhere in this process, we seem to have acquired an implicit
>requirement for WGs to establish their own separate P&P - from 7.2.2:
>
>"WG election procedures shall be defined within the WG P&P. Prior to their
>establishment, election procedures must be reviewed and approved by the EC
>before implementation."
>
>and
>
>"The Officers of the WG defined in the WG P&P shall constitute a Working
>Group Executive Committee (WGEC) as referenced elsewhere in this P&P."
>
>We've managed to operate very effectively in 802.1 for >22 years without
>having to spend valuable meeting time on the development of formal WG
>policies and procedures; it ain't broke and it don't need fixing.
>
>If we need to document procedures for conducting WG officer elections,
>there is absolutely no good reason why they shouldn't be made consistent
>across 802, and therefore they are better enshrined in the 802 P&P rather
>than forcing the WGs to create another level of rules documentation to no
>very good purpose.
>
>If this particular aspect of the rules change is included and approved in
>November, it will effectively disallow any WG that doesn't have
>established P&P for electing officers (including 802.3, for example, who
>defer to the 802 P&P on this point) from conducting officer elections.
>That is, I believe, unacceptable, as establishing WG P&P either from
>scratch or as a set of changes to existing WG P&P can be (as we have found
>in this series of changes) a lengthy and in some cases, non-terminating,
>process.
>
>If the two paragraphs quoted above remain in the document I will have to
>vote against this set of changes.
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>At 03:08 02/10/2005, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>>Folks,
>>
>>
>>
>>We had a pretty good turn out for the last P&P meeting, and I felt there
>>was a fair amount of consensus. Attached please find the current
>>resolution on the 'WG Membership and Meetings' P&P revision ballot. If
>>you feel you cannot support the changes in this document, let me know.
>>
>>
>>
>>Note - I still need to update the document to reflect the approved
>>changes from last plenary. I prefer to wait till I get a final version
>>of the approved updates from SA before doing any further editing. But I
>>will rewrite this revision against the updated P&P prior to the November
>>plenary for clarity.
>>
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>>Mat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>>Senior Member Technical Staff
>>BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
>>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>>email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------
>>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>----------
>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.