|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
one thought maybe, in the 4.2 on voting membership where it mentions about Session fees. the 2nd sentence starts with “Those attending……”. i know it has been there and is meant to be for anyone attending, though a lot of focus in this section is on ‘membership’.
would saying “Anyone attending Sessions shall pay….” be clearer?
that is all,
I have reviewed the potential issue with member vs. non-voting member
and voting member.
In 4.3, it says N/A for non-voting member, hence WGs only have voting
members, there is no other class of member.
I could add a clarification to 4.2, by adding "All Working Group Members
are voting members."
4.2 Voting Membership
Working Group membership is by individual. All Working Group Members are
voting members. Those attending Sessions shall pay any required Session
fees if established. Participants seeking Working Group membership are
responsible for fulfilling the requirements to gain and maintain membership.
Now, if a WG wants different sub-classes of participants (e.g.,
aspirant) or voting member (e.g., member in doom or member in peril),
then they can do that in their Operations Manual.
So, I am suggesting the above change, plus the editorial changes on
slide 10 of ec-21-0287-02, leave in "Although not a requirement for
membership in the Working Group, participants are encouraged to join the
IEEE, IEEE SA and the IEEE Computer Society."
In 4.6 Working Group Participant list:
Change "except temporarily when required to edit or update the list."
"except temporarily during the time required to use, edit or update the
as we discussed in the closing meeting.
I am going to update the proposed document and start an early close
ballot tonight (as authorized during our closing meeting).
On 11/17/21 7:59 PM, ROBERT GROW wrote:
> Since you have designated me as your spelling and grammar checker, I have a few non-substantive comments of that sort. BUT, I also have other comments that might cause EC members to conclude the WG P&P is not ready for submittal again.
> General — There are a lot of brackets which makes inclusion of the text ambiguous. The instructions say to either remove the bracketed text (assume including the brackets), or remove the brackets if used, this hasn’t been done.
> Page 6, 1.5 — "An Interim Session is set of meetings...” grammar correction to "An Interim Session is a set of meetings…"
> Page 7, 1.5 — "A Session is collection of …” grammar correction to "A Session is a collection of …”
> Page 11, 3.2.5,a) — Readability would be improved if the run-on sentence is broken up, but I note the problem is AudCom’s from making the lettered list phrases rather than sentences. The ending "Second Vice Chair does .” left me thinking “does what?”. Perhaps replace “does” with “takes over” for consistency with the First Vice Chair text.
> Now for a few substantive issues!
> Page 4, 1.5 — There is a baseline problem that complicates the document. All participants must be either a member or non-member, but there is nothing in the baseline that defines any rights or other status except they can’t vote. In the past, IEEE legal has given us the interpretation that a subscriber to a reflector is a participant. I hope this remains true. Unfortunately the Baseline P&P use italics in 1.5 to define non-member, member, voting member, and non-voting member. (This makes the word “member” ambiguous in some cases in both AudCom and our text, and this use of italics differs from other terms that are capitalized (e.g., “Chair”). Uncapitalized (i.e., no italics) is appropriate for “IEEE SA member” and other members that aren’t referring to WG membership, so AudCom use of capitals for the terms would improve the baseline.
> I think we would be better off if we could change the 1.5 definition of terms. For us, Members are a subset of Participants, and I don’t know of any reason we want to identify a group which is non-member participants. Similarly, I have trouble with the need for a definition for non-voting members (yes I noted 4.3).
> Enough whinging about the baseline. What is wrong with the current baseline WG P&P text and the 1.5 definitions of member being either voting or non-voting:
> 3.5.4,h) — So non-member participants can’t get the list of voting members? Why? Why isn’t this the WG membership list of 4.7, shouldn’t all participants be able to know all other participants affiiiations? (Oops this is baseline issue, but still is related to the problem of the 1.5 definition separating Members into non-voting members and voting members and perhaps some on AudCom having trouble separating “members” from being a synonym for “voting member".)
> 4.2, first paragraph — The first use of “membership” appears to be correct, the others should be “voting membership".
> 4.2, third and fourth paragraphs — All occurrences of “membership” should be “voting membership”.
> 4.2, 6th paragraph, last sentence — This is misleading. Perhaps add at the end “without payment of a per ballot fee”.
> 4.2, 8th paragraph — “Membership” should be "Voting membership”.
> 4.2, 9th paragraph — All occurrences of “membership” should be “voting membership”.
> 4.2.1, 1st paragraph — “Membership” should be "Voting membership”.
> 4.2.1, 3rd paragraph — “member (i.e., has voting rights)” should use the defined term voting member
> 4.2.1, 5th through 8th paragraphs — all occurrences of “member” or “membership” without the qualifier “voting” should have that qualifier.
> 12 — All forms of “member” should be “voting member”
> 14, second paragraph — “members” should be “voting members”
> 4.6 and 4.7 — I have a practical problem with both the position of Yvette, and the text. I find three lists used in the P&P: WG Voting Member list (3.4.5,h), WG Participant List (4.6), and WG Membership list (4.7). An example of a practical problem is Direct Vote Live. As I understand, it uses email addresses in validating who is allowed to vote, and that has to be populated to use the tool. Email addresses are only included on the WG Participant List, and there is no exemption for using keeping any of the PII contained in the WG Participant List for any purpose except for updating the list. This means that volunteers cannot practically run a tool the uses any of the PII in the WG Participant List. This makes things less secure than using the WG Membership List. But The WG Membership List does not even information to separate voting members and non-voting members per the definitions of 1.5. How does the Secretary fulfill their duty in 3.5.4,h when the Membership List.
> It seems to me that this is mostly a baseline problem. Would AudCom allow extraction of voting status of members from the Participant list to create the voting member list? Would AudCom (contrary to the instructions) allow voting status of members to be included as item c)? Would AudCom be willing to change 3.5.4,h) to reference the WG Membership list instead of creating a third list? Would IEEE SA Risk Management recognize the practical need to use a subset of the PII to keep our process with electronic tools both practical and a secure implementation of more cumbersome methods for doing things like roll call voting.
>> On Nov 16, 2021, at 11:28 AM, James P. K. Gilb <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I have uploaded the proposed WG P&P. It can be found at:
>> We had some discussion prior to approving it before about not storing the the Working Group Participant List on non IEEE hardware. The compromise we came up with was:
>> "except temporarily when required to edit or update the list."
>> The AudCom reviewers pointed out that "temporarily" is ill-defined.
>> I have suggested changing it to:
>> "except temporarily during the time required to edit or update the list,"
>> Yvette has suggested:
>> "except temporarily during the time required to edit or update the list if the list is not on a system that automatically stores the data to a non-IEEE system, and the information is deleted immediately after use."
>> This topic generated a fair amount of discussion before, so in the interest of keeping our closing meeting shorter, I would invite comments on the text via email. It seems reasonable to assume that there is better wording available.
>> As a reminder, there is a new proposed Operations Manual for which I will ask for a vote at the closing. Please review and comment. I have some editorial corrections from Bob Grow (I don't need spell check or grammar check, I have Bob).
>> In particular, I changed "IEEE 802 LMSC Interim Teleconference Meeting" to be "IEEE 802 LMSC Interim Electronic Meeting" to match the term in our P&P. I think I have used and capitalized it correctly in the OM. I also capitalized Interim Session and Plenary Session as they are now defined terms in our WG P&P.
>> Take a look, you can find the updated proposed version at:
>> James Gilb
>> 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.
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1