Re: [802SEC] Latest Rev of WG Membership and Meeting P&P Revision
Mat -
I don't know what you are looking at, but I was NOT referring to appeal
procedures. I was looking at the WG election procedures text on page 2,
lines 18-20, which, in the PDF you circulated this morning, is NOT struck
through, but is highlighted in blue and underlined. The text reads:
"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."
I repeat, I cannot support the document in its current form.
Regards,
Tony
At 17:09 17/11/2005, Sherman, Matthew J. \(US SSA\) wrote:
>In the PDF I circulated (and I think the prior version as well) those
>words are struck through. At least they are on my screen when I view the
>PDF. Is this not the case for you? Not that the strike through does not
>carry forward when I copy the text from the PDF (see below). However it
>is struck through in the PDF.
>
>Mat
>
>WG appeal procedures shall be defined within the WG P&P. Prior to
>establishment of the WG P&P, 17
>appeals may be made to the EC. Actions of the WG itself may always be
>appealed to the EC.
>
>
>
>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>Senior Member Technical Staff
>BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>
>----------
>From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
>Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 12:01 PM
>To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
>Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Latest Rev of WG Membership and Meeting P&P Revision
>
>Mat -
>
>I thought that you had agreed to remove the wording:
>
>"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."
>
>It still seems to be in the document that you circulated - I just copied
>it from the PDF. What is going on here?
>
>I absolutely will not support the changes as described in what you have
>circulated.
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>
>At 14:41 17/11/2005, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>
>Folks,
>
>
>
>Attached please find the latest rev based on most recent comments. I've
>restored the original language for loss of membership based on
>attendance, but retained added commentary. I won't say it is perfect,
>but believe it is an improvement over the rules we currently operate
>under. Note that I am still tightening the requirement to gain
>membership from 2/4 to 2/3. I've heard general support for that on the
>EC. I have not polled the membership, but it really has no direct
>impact on members (just wanna be members).
>
>
>
>I WILL HOLD A 6 PM P&P MEETING in the Dover room (4th floor Hyatt). If
>you have any concerns please bring them forward to me. I don't want to
>make any further textual changes at this point, but if I know there is a
>sensitivity I will partition key text out of the main revision so it can
>be voted separately. I DO NOT plan to have motions to divide. I will
>simply bring separate sections of text to the floor for consideration.
>
>
>
>Based on feedback at the P&P open mike session, I plan to bring forward
>a P&P revision to permit separate WG Plenary sessions. These would
>replace well planned and long standing interim sessions. I believe it
>can directly address some of the issues we are trying to address
>indirectly with the membership rules. Remember that this will not be a
>approve the specific wording I bring forward (which will have had
>limited review). But to agree to deeply consider the change, and
>determine it's scope.
>
>
>
>I'll follow up with more data in a while.
>
>
>
>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
Regards,
Tony
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.