John,
I've few questions:
1) What does AOB mean?
2) A plenary typically has an opening and closing session, but an interim only has one session. The CFI is announced at the opening and the vote is taken at the closing. Is the intent or plan to change to have an opening and closing sessions at an interim?
3) The edit states that a CFI request must be made 35 days in advance of a meeting, but the next sentence appears to imply that for an interim CFI "it shall be announced" at the prior closing plenary. It would seem that these statements could create a conflict. The first statement would imply that the only requirement is 35 days. Also, what is the "it" in the "it shall be announced"? Is that the request to do a CFI?
4) Consider the SG requires approval of the LMSC EC, do they have the ability to approve SG's outside of a plenary meeting (in a continuous process manner)? If not, then having to wait until the next plenary for EC approval of the SG won't accelerate the SG formation.
5) Why was the last line of 4.2 struck? This seems to modify the powers of the LMSC EC. Are they willing?
While I believe I understand the intent of the modification, a couple of minor concerns that I would have with this are the following:
1) Interim meetings are a smaller set of the 802 family; therefore, there is no ability to share the consensus building sessions we do in the evenings of the plenary with the larger 802 family.
2) The plenary WG meetings are held during the day, but the interim WG meeting are currently held at night. Many members come to an interim meeting for their specific area of focus. A CFI during an interim could impact the ability for members to participate.
3) This seems to try to accelerate the ability to form a SG, but is this really an issue with 802.3? Do we need to initiate projects at a faster pace?
Thanks,
Brad