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

Re: [802SEC] +++ Final Talley for LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ AudCom

EC Members,

Please see updated tally and comments based on corrections / inputs
received from Tony and Mike Lynch today.



Matthew Sherman, Ph.D. 
Engineering Fellow 
BAE Systems -  Network Systems (NS) 
Office: +1 973.633.6344 
Cell: +1 973.229.9520 



-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) 
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:17 AM
Cc: Phillip Barber
Subject: +++ Final Talley for LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ AudCom

Dear EC members,

First, Thanks to all who participated (including non-EC member who
provided inputs).  Below you will find the final results on this ballot.
The comments are included below the vote counts.  Please let me know if
you see any errors in the accounting.

FYI, I've included all late comments and votes. Also, I plan to develop
a recommended comment resolution and circulate it prior to the July
plenary.  It will be discussed at our usual Sunday Night P&P Review
meeting.  I recommend that we also use that slot to discuss the Chairs

Thanks & Regards,


Voters		      DNV   DIS   APP   ABS	Comments Provided?
CH Paul Nikolich			DIS			Yes
V1 Mat Sherman 		DNV				
V2 Pat Thaler	 		DIS			Yes
ES Buzz Rigsbee		DNV
RS Bob O'Hara			DIS			Yes		
TR John Hawkins		DNV
01 Tony Jeffree			DIS
03 Bob Grow			DNV
11 Stuart Kerry			DIS			Yes
15 Bob Heile		DNV
16 Roger Marks			DIS			Yes		
17 John  Lemon			DIS			Yes
18 Mike Lynch			DIS			Yes
19 Steve Shellhammer		DIS			Yes
20 Arnie Greenspan      	DIS			Yes
21 Vivek Gupta		DNV
22 Carl Stevenson			DIS			Yes
ME Geoff Thompson       non-voting
total:			-08- -09- -00- -00-

Ballot Comments:
Michael Lynch []
Thu 6/28/2007 11:04 AM

Here is the comment as I received it:

"It appears that a key part of section (Chairs function) has
been deleted.  This is the requirement that " The Working Group members
and the Chair decide technical issues by vote".  This sentence needs to
be moved to section  The voting section ( sets a 75%
approval rating for all votes but it does not currently require the
chair to put technical issues to a WG vote.

I also believe that there is an ambiguity on what happens when the chair
decides to have the WG vote on a procedural issue. Does the chair have
the final decision or is the Chair then bound by the decision of the WG?

If a Chair, at their discretion, has decided to have the WG decide a
procedural issue then I believe that they should be bound by the
decision of the WG. This changes the language in Section item b
from "The Chair decides procedural issues"   to " The Chair decides
procedural issues unless, at the Chairs discretion, the Chair has the WG
vote on a procedural issue."

Tony Jeffree [tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK]
Mon 6/25/2007 5:49 PM

Please change my vote to disapprove. In addition to comments already
submitted by others, much of which I support, please note the following: (a) and (a): "Decide which matters are procedural and
technical".  This is incorrectly stated. I believe the intent is "Decide
which matters are procedural and which matters are technical". Re-word
accordingly. (g) and (g): "Set goals and deadlines and adhere to
them". Nice sentiment, but adherence to deadlines isn't necessarily
under the Chair's control. Re-word as "Set goals and deadlines". I don't believe that giving a technical opinion is the only
reason that a Chair might wish to be recused. Change "i.e.," to "e.g.,".

Mon 6/25/2007 4:19 PM

Just for the record my late vote is disapprove pending resolotion of the
comments and concerns that have been forwarded.

Pat Thaler []
Mon 6/25/2007 2:49 PM


Required comments
I agree with Steve's concerns about the chair's list, though to execute
that the remedy proposed by Roger Marks is more complete (i.e. delete a
and b and change c (the new a) to putting all matters to vote of the
In most of our working groups, the chairs choose to put some procedural
matters to majority vote and the text should reflect this. Change b) to:
Decide procedural matters or put them to a majority vote. 
For consistancy with this, change to "Voting on Technical

7.2.2 and
The WG treasurers (where the working group has a treasury) should have
an equivalent list of duties as the LMSC treasurer. This list could be
put under bullet b) which currently has an incomplete list.

The following are non-required comments - the first is text that was not
changed by this draft.
An appointed WG or TAG chair could be read as both voting and
non-voting. The list of voting members of the EC shows Chairs of Active
Working Groups and TAGs without qualifying that so it could be read to
include appointed ones. Then the non-voting list says appointed WG or
TAG chairs. Ideally we would clarify the voting chairs as elected and
confirmed chairs. 

Acting positions also is a bit confusing. What acting position is there
where the transition to non-acting is an election? WG and TAG chairs
were already covered. The only other elected officer is the LMSC Chair
but there is no provision for choosing an acting one - the vice-chair
acts and already is a voting member. "or elected" should be deleted.
Secondly, I think in the past what we have actually done would be:
"Acting positions (prior to confirmation)," because in the past we have
allowed the person to vote once confirmed. Or, if we want to keep it as
is "Acting positions (prior to the close of the plenary session where
confirmed)" because it is confirmation rather than appointment that
changes the officer from acting to regular status and because
appointment could occur between sessions in case of an abrupt vacancy.

Shouldn't we list duties for the Executive Secretary as well. Also, for
consistancy, move the vice-chair duty serving in case of unavailability
or incapacity of the chair to here and use the same text as for WG

Regarding other comments that have been made:
7.1.2 I don't agree with the comment suggesting adding a parlimentarian
non-voting officer. I think that one of the existing officers should be
able to pick up this duty if the chair feels it necessary. and I prefer 30 days.

Roger Marks comment 2: the text looks fine to me except "have that
position be considered". Formally in parlimentary procedure, "to
consider" is to have a motion and non-voters don't have the right to
make motions so this should be deleted. (Editorial "No action" should
start a new paragraph after the bulleted list. It looks like some
formatting was lost in these comments.)

Bob O'Hara (boohara) []
Sun 6/24/2007 5:44 PM

I vote disapprove.  I will change to approve, if the comments supplied
by the other EC members are addressed.

Roger B. Marks []
Sun 6/24/2007 5:20 PM


Paul Nikolich []
Sun 6/24/2007 2:16 PM

I disapprove.  I will change to approve if Steve Shellhammer's and
Stuart's recommended changes are made.

J Lemon []
Mon 6/18/2007 8:33 PM

I vote disapprove, with the following comments:

page 2, line 25, substantive: Add "The Vice Chair of a WG shall be
considered the Chair of the WG for this purpose in the case of
unavailability or incapacity of the Chair."
page 2, line 27, substantive: Add "The Vice Chair of a TAG shall be
considered the Chair of the TAG for this purpose in the case of
unavailability or incapacity of the Chair."
page 2, line 31, substantive: I see no reason why appointed chairs would
not be voters. Wasn't Arnie appointed?
page 2, line 38, editorial: Correct the reference.
page 3, line 8, editorial: Change "the executive committee member and an
individual" to "the executive committee member and (for those who are
not self supporting) an individual".
page 3, line 15, editorial: Correct the reference.
page 4, line 17, substantive: Change "WG" to "WG or TAG"
page 4, line 24, substantive: Strike item e. I see no reason for such a
page 4, line 36, substantive: Change "WG" to "WG or TAG"
page 4, line 38, editorial: Remove the hyphens between "Vice" and
"Chair" throughout this paragraph.
page 4, line 39, substantive: Remove the parenthetical phrase. It is far
from the only reason why a chair may choose to recuse; and it is not a
necessary reason to recuse.

I would change my vote to approve if the substantive comments were
addressed as I suggest (or if I were to be convinced to give up on those
that are not so addressed).

Further, I'm okay with Steve's suggested changes, and I support Stuart's
suggested changes.

Carl R. Stevenson []
Wed 5/30/2007 10:56 AM

I agree with Steve and vote NO, but will also change my vote to YES if
the changes Steve requests are made.

Shellhammer, Steve []
Tue 5/29/2007 7:43 PM

I vote NO but will change my vote to a YES if the following changes are
Section 7.1.2
Under non-voting members add "Parliamentarian" 
Remove "a) Decide which matters are procedural and technical." The
executive committee does not decide technical maters so all maters are
Remove "c) Place technical issues to a vote by WG members" 
In "b) Record and publish minutes of each meeting within 60 calendar
days of the end of meeting." change 60 to 30. There is no reason the
minutes cannot be published within 30 days. 
In "b) Record and publish minutes of each meeting within 60 calendar
days of the end of meeting." change 60 to 30. There is no reason the
minutes cannot be published within 30 days. 
Section 12
The text states "Both technical and procedural appeals may be made." I
am unclear on what basis someone can make a technical appeal. Please
include in the document the basis of a technical appeal. 

Stuart J. Kerry []
Thu 5/24/2007 9:15 AM

I have a problem with this one below: WG Secretary
45 The Secretary shall:
46 a) Distribute the agenda at least 14 calendar days before meetings.
47 b) Record and publish minutes of each meeting within 60 calendar days
of the end of meeting.
Respectfully I belive that this whole section should be removed for the
WG Secretary, and the only addition would be to add the point a) to the
WG Chairs list.


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