I respectfully disagree with Mr. Gilb. I think he is interpreting the rules through a filter of specific WG rules for subgroup membership. As pointed out before, in 802.3, the TF is the de facto comment resolution group (CRG), and the default for TFs is that anyone that attends can vote. (This hasn’t been the case with rules suspension allowing greater flexibility for teleconference actions by TFs but placing an 802.3 membership requirement for TF voting.)
I think Geoff has a valid point on attendance being a way to purge almost all folk that would be granted “special” membership to enable a vote on P802 WG ballot. Aging out members need not require waiting for multiple meetings. In fact, this “special” membership list for the 802.1 revision could be very briefly lived by following the rules (not by the Chair assuming rights to revoke granted membership for any reason). I’m not aware of possible WG rules on when the member/voter list can be purged, so the below assumes there are none, only WG Chair practice. (Typically, this is at the end of a plenary or interim session for attendance, but independent of attendance, at the end of a WG ballot series for participation in 2 of the last 3 WG ballots.
I believe most WGs have seen cases where someone is granted membership based on the rules, then also per the rules, losing it immediately after the next meeting because the attendance window has moved. But I do not find anything that requires evaluation of the attendance requirement only be done at the end of a plenary or interim series of meetings.
I think the “special" member list only need exist for a couple days (more research required to see if it could be less). (Minimum, the day the WG ballot is opened and the P802 WG ballot group is established.) The proposed invitation could close on day 0 (or day -x), “special” membership be granted by the Chair on day 1, followed by ballot opening; with almost all those granted “special” membership losing that membership following ballot opening, by purging the membership roll for lack of attendance on day 2. (There might be some corner cases, e.g., an individual meets attendance requirements during the November plenary, but would not be eligible for getting membership until the following (March) plenary; and with the ballot opening after the November plenary, such individual would not be purged because they met the attendance requirement in November.)
But what is really gained by this complexity and required work placed on the 802.1 Chair?
I’m thinking about the chat suggestion (Ben?) to simply consider comments. I have no doubt that 802.1 will fulfill its responsibility to “consider all comments that are received prior to the close of the ballot.” (SASB OM, 5.4.3.3). So, only voting is an issue. I doubt 802.1 will simply “blow off” serious comments recognizing the ability of any 802 participant to join the SA ballot group, where the individual would be able to vote and comment on the same issue(s). An additional encouragement for 802.1 to consider all comments equally independent of vote would be to assure that all 802 participants be made aware of the invitation to participate in the SA ballot (no rules changes or EC motion required to copy the invitation to SA ballot to all WG participants).
So, granting WG special membership creates extra work for the 802.1Chair, and risks inflating the denominator potentially making it more difficult to meet the response rate requirement; but it gets voters from other WGs a vote to allow indication of which comments are really important to them (MBS).
I think LMSC WG P&P, 11 includes support for James' citation of SA ballot requirements regarding comment resolution: "Comment resolution, recirculations, etc. should be consistent with Standards Committee ballot rules and 5.4.3.2 of the IEEE- SA Standards Board Operations Manual (SASB OM).”
SASB OM 5.4.3 makes the Standards Committee responsible for ensuring “that comment resolution occurs via a comment resolution group”, but is silent about whether the Standards Committee can micromanage the CRG rules rather than leaving that to the WG (because the CRG, as pointed out below, is a subgroup of the WG). So, I support the interpretation that the WG should be allowed to specify the CRG and participation/voting rules unless the WG fails to designate/create a CRG.
> On Oct 4, 2022, at 4:21 PM, James P. K. Gilb <
000008e8b69871c2-dmarc-request@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
>
> All
>
> Geoff's interpretation would allow the WG Chair, for any reason, to remove any voting member's voting rights. I don't see any interpretation of the rules that allow that. Allowing the WG Chair to confer voting rights does not, by extension, allow the WG Chair to remove them. (quotes from the WG P&P below).
>
> Glenn
>
> I wasn't suggesting making the subgroup members voting members of IEEE 802.1. I was hoping IEEE 802.1 could form a comment resolution subgroup and declare the voting membership for that group.
>
> However, on further review, Membership in the subgroup is granted to any Member of the WG (mall WG embers are voting members). The non-WG members are allowed to "participate", which would imply not voting or acting as voting members, but only acting as participants.
>
> So that doesn't solve it either. We would need to change the rules (we can't suspend the P&P or WG P&P).
>
>
> Reference: what the WG P&P says about membership (excerpted):
>
> 4.2. Voting Membership
>
> ...
>
> Membership may be declared at the discretion of the Working Group Chair (e.g., for contributors by correspondence or other significant contributions to the Working Group). The Working Group Chair may authorize Credited Attendance for individuals while on activities approved by the Working Group Chair.
>
> ..
>
>
>
> 4.4 Review of Membership
>
> Membership privileges may be lost through persistent violation of the fundamental principles of standards development or disregard of standards of conduct (see Clause 1 of these P&P).
>
> The Chair shall review the list of voting members at least annually. Voting members are expected to fulfill the requirements of active participation as defined in Clause 4. When a voting member does not meet these obligations, the Chair shall consider the matter for appropriate action, which may include a change in membership status and the loss of voting rights.
>
> The Chair may “specially maintain” a voting member’s status that would otherwise be lost by failing to meet their obligations. Reasons for such an action might include consideration of personal hardship, medical emergency or outstanding contributions.
>
>
>
> On 10/4/22 14:46, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>> Folks-
>> The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.
>> My interpretation of the chair's right to grant voting membership to a WG presumes the right to undo what he has done.Since that explicit right is neither granted nor forbidden, I believe it is a matter of interpretation.That would make it a matter for a ruling by the chair (WG or EC?).Since those added by the chair presumably do not have a sufficient attendance record, I would argue that they could be deleted at the next general purge for lack of attendance.
>> Solutions: - A ruling by the chair (lacking evidence to the contrary) that those added by the chair can be deleted by the same standards of and subject to an ordinary regular purge. - A ruling by the EC Chair that addition for only a specific ballot group is permissible. - Other?
>> Geoff
>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022, 01:25:55 PM PDT, Glenn Parsons <
00000f6f9e80d40c-dmarc-request@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
>> James,
>> One concern with the proposal is that the group of voters added to the 802.1 WG so that they would be in the P802REVc pool, will be voters until they age out.
>> No. The WG Balloting Group is set for all time at the start of Initial WG Ballot. If a person gains or loses 802.1 voting rights after that start, it has no effect on the membership of the project ballot group. [In the same way that for "Sponsor Ballot" death is just a change of address.]
>> You confirmed that the WG chair can add voters but not remove them. During this time they will also become voters in other WG ballots that are started. And will result in quorum issues (if the group is large).
>> Is there anyway to mitigate this without a rule change?
>> Cheers,
>> Glenn.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <
STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org> On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 4:05 PM
>> To:
STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802 O&A balloting proposal
>> All
>> Based on the rules I have found, it is theoretically possible for IEEE
>> 802.1 to form a subgroup as a comment resolution group and "allow participation of persons who are not Working Group Members and specify the terms and conditions under which they participate in the subgroup."
>> Note that the 802.1 WG could delegate responsibility for resolution to the subgroup. ("Any resolution of a subgroup shall be subject to confirmation by the Working Group, unless previously or otherwise delegated to the subgroup.").
>> IMHO.
>> James Gilb
>> IEEE-SA Standards Board OM
>> 5.4.3 Conduct of the standards balloting process
>> ...
>> The Standards Committee shall ensure that comment resolution occurs via a comment resolution group, which is a subgroup of the working group.
>> ...
>> JPKG NOTE: The preceding is for SA ballot.
>> IEEE 802 LMSC WG P&P
>> 5. Subgroups of the Working Group
>> The Working Group may form subgroups for the conduct of its business.
>> Membership in the subgroup is granted to any Member of the Working Group. Such formation shall be explicitly noted in the meeting minutes.
>> At the time of formation, the Working Group shall determine the scope and duties delegated to the subgroup, may decide to allow participation of persons who are not Working Group Members and specify the terms and conditions under which they participate in the subgroup. Such formation shall be explicitly noted in the meeting minutes. Any changes to the scope and duties of the subgroup will require the approval of the Working Group. Any resolution of a subgroup shall be subject to confirmation by the Working Group, unless previously or otherwise delegated to the subgroup.
>> The Chair of the Working Group shall appoint, and may dismiss, the Chair of the subgroup.
>> On 10/4/22 12:14, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>>> As to be discussedSee attached
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------
>>> 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.
>> ----------
>> 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.