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

FW: [802SEC] Ballot periods


You said "Until recently, WG Chairs have followed the traditional
policy, using the same periods that were specified for WG ballots." I
don't find that the records support this, at least not in the last
three years.

Until last summer, the 802 rules specified 40 days for WG letter
ballots. I've checked the  history, which the IEEE-SA maintains back
to 2000. For new ballots, I found that 11 of 17 were 29 days [plus a
fractional day]. Only P802.11F/D4 was 40; P802.1s/D14.1 was close at

Also, until last summer, the 802 rules did not specify a reduced
duration for WG recircs. Obviously, no one did a 40-day recirc at
sponsor ballot. Here are the durations of sponsor ballot recircs:

P802.3ad/D3.1            9+  2000
P802.5v/D1.4            10+  2000
P802.11b-Cor 1/D1.6      9+  2001
P802/D30                19+  2001
P802.16.2/D2a            9+  2001
P802.1t                 12+  2001
P802.1u                  9+  2001
P802.1v                  9+  2001
P802.11d/D3             10+  2001
P802.11b/D1.5           10+  2001
P802/D29                21+  2001
P1802.3/D3.1             9+  2001
P802.1w/D10              9+  2001
P802.15.1/D1.0.1        10+  2002
P802.3ae/D4.1           12+  2002
P802.3ae/D4.2           13+  2002
P802.3ae/D4.3           10+  2002
P802.3ae/D5.0           15+  2002
P802.16a                 9+  2002
P802.16c/D4              9+  2002
P802.1s/D15              9+  2002
P802.16a/D6              9+  2002
P802.16a                15+  2002
P802.11f/D4.1           15+  2002

So recircs of 9+ days go back at least to 802.3ad in 2000.


>I agree.  My assumption is that a WG chair has no authority to pick
>a shorter ballot period than that specified in the rules.  The WG
>Chair isn't the sponsor, (as IEEE staff has so clearly pointed out
>to me in doing a PAR presubmission).  I know of no explicit
>delegation of sponsor authority that allows the WG Chair to pick
>their own ballot periods, etc.  My assumption is the ballot center
>is giving 802 WG Chairs significant freedom based on history.  Until
>recently, WG Chairs have followed the traditional policy, using the
>same periods that were specified for WG ballots.
>--Bob Grow
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Geoff Thompson []
>Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:05 PM
>To: Roger B. Marks
>Cc: Geoff Thompson;
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Ballot periods
>Again I may have been a little too imprecise.
>I think you are correct in that the OR never spec'd it. I didn't
>that one
>It used to be much more firmly in the hands of the person who was
>(i.e. Don Loughry) and he was not particularly inclined to write rules
>himself. The tone of all of that changed on "The Dark and Stormy Night"
>which caused the proletariat to actually look at the rules and start
>putting the pressure on to fix them.
>Before TD&SN the rules were mostly of the flavor that WG Chairs and the
>Sponsor had all of the power and discretion.
>So, I won't bet you a steak dinner but I'll buy you one since we gonna
>in Texas.
>I do stand by my position that we should default to the only rules that
>have for letter ballots until we have something explicitly different.
>At 05:43 PM 2/5/2003 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>  >Geoff,
>  >
>  >When you said "Our P&P have screwed up because they narrowed the
>  >a letter ballot" [so as not to apply to Sponsor Ballot], I wondered
>  >meant that we screwed up last year when we changed the language
>  >WG Letter Ballots, including the duration. To check, I looked up the
>  >rules, and the situation was identical: no reference to Sponsor
>>rules or durations.
>>I don't have any older rules, but I'll bet a steak dinner that the
>>rules have never specified Sponsor Ballot durations since I've been
>>to 802 meetings (i.e., since November 1998).
>>At 11:13 AM -0800 03/02/05, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>  >>Roger-
>>>My profound apologies. In my zeal to protect the process I was paying
>  >>insufficient attention to courtesy.
>>>More appropriately...
>>>          1) It isn't the Balloting's job to determine balloting
>  >> it is clearly ours.
>  >>         2) I don't trust their judgement with respect to the
>  >> they may throw at us on whatever basis they decide (unless they
>>>  chapter and verse of their P&P that over ride ours).
>  >>
>>>RE your statement:
>>>>Under the status quo, I do not agree that we are in danger of
>>>>being overturned on appeal for following the Balloting Center
>>>>(29-30 days for a ballot and 9-10 for a recirc). Those defaults are
>>>>accordance with LMSC and IEEE-SA rules.
>>>Our rules currently say: "...for recirculation ballots, ..., the
>  >>time shall be at least fifteen days."
>>>Our P&P have screwed up because they narrowed the scope of a letter
>>>ballot to be that of a "Working Group Letter Ballot" instead of
having a
>>>procedure for "letter ballots" and then requiring Working Groups
>>>others) to use it.
>>>Clearly the scope of LMSC is both Sponsor and Working Group Ballots
>>>since we became "self-sponsored" and broke away from TCCC years ago).
>>>This shows up in our P&P in clause 1 paragraph 3
>>>The P802 Sponsor Executive Committee serves as the Executive
>>>for both the sponsor ballot groups as well as the Standards
>>>Groups.  The standards sponsoring organization is designated as the
>>>MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) and includes the Sponsor Executive
>>>Committee, a balloting pool for forming LMSC Sponsor balloting
>>>and a set of Standards Development Groups.
>>>3.1     Function
>>>   The function of the Executive Committee is to oversee the
operation of
>>>  the LAN MAN Standards Committee in the following ways:
>>>j)      Oversee formation of sponsor ballot groups and sponsor ballot
>>>Clause 4
>>>   The LMSC Sponsor Ballots will be administered by the Executive
>>>  Committee in accordance with Section 5 of the IEEE Standards Manual
>>>  Procedure 7 of these rules.
>>>There is, of course, no such thing as "the IEEE Standards Manual"
>>>The last one was published in 1992 (paper only).
>>>I do happen to have one, I could bring it to DFW.
>>>The IEEE Standards Manual clearly says its our job, not that of
>>>Balloting. The IEEE Standards Manual does not mention balloting
>>>except for something about 60 days for mandatory coordination.
>>>It says, in part, (5.2) "The Sponsor is responsible for supervising
>>>standards project from inception to completion."
>>>In sum, since:
>>>1) It is our responsibility
>>>   2) We don't explicitly call out the periods for Sponsor Letter
>>>I believe that the (implicit) rule till we get things fixed is our
>>>existing letter ballot procedures.
>>>We gotta fix the obsolete reference to "The IEEE Standards Manual" in
>>>clause 4.
>>>Again, my apologies.
>>>At 09:54 PM 2/4/2003 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>>>>I object to your characterization of my position. I don't see a
>>>>of me saying "we should just defer to whatever staff decides to do".
>>>>What I said is that the 802 rules do not specify a minimum duration
>>>>sponsor ballots or sponsor ballot recircs.
>>>>If we change the rules to specify minimum durations then, of course,
>>>>ought to make sure that the Balloting Center runs our ballots
>>>>Under the status quo, I do not agree that we are in danger of
>>>>being overturned on appeal for following the Balloting Center
>>>>(29-30 days for a ballot and 9-10 for a recirc). Those defaults are
>>>>accordance with LMSC and IEEE-SA rules. [The IEEE-SA doesn't say
>>>>about this, although the Standards Companion says "Recirculations
>>>>normally do not take the time that regular ballots do--most are only
>>>>about 10 days in length."]
>>>>I would support an LMSC rules change to require minimum durations on
>>>>sponsor ballots and recircs. 30 days and 10 days would be my
>  >>>
>  >>>At 4:06 PM -0800 03/02/04, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>>>>>I believe that we screwed up on this one. I thoroughly support your
>>>>>effort. The SA staff is in no better shape than we are in this area
>>>>>remember that, in spite of VERY long standing practice we had NO
>>>>>FOUNDATION WHATSOEVER in our OR/P&P for any recirc to less than 30
>  >>>>for the majority of the last 20 years.
>>>>>It is my position that Roger was incorrect when he said that we
>>>>>just defer to whatever staff decides to do. This is an area where
>>>>>could lose an appeal. I believe that the SA should be providing
>>>>>balloting services to Sponsors under Sponsor rules. Sponsors, in
>>>>>are supposed to get their P&P approved by AudCom. It is not a
>  >>>>system. Paul ultimately is on the hook for the decision.
>>>>>I would like to take him off the hook...
>>>>>          ...assure that there is adequate time for review
>>>>>          ...and remove any uncertainty regarding our system.
>>>>>My position will be that, with an underlying rationale to see that
>>>>>ballot is in hand for at least 10 days, our rules need to say that
>>>>>802 ballot (i.e. Working Group and LMSC) recirculations will be at
>>>>>least 15 days from the timestamp of the announcing e-mail until the
>>>>>close of ballot.
>>>>>Thanks for grabbing the ball on this.
>>>>>At 12:41 PM 1/24/2003 -0800, Grow, Bob wrote:
>>>>>>This is to inform you that I intend to propose a rules change to
>>>>>>enforce minimum ballot periods for our Sponsor ballots.  I also
>>>>>>to raise the issue of ballot periods to ProCom for all SA ballots.
>>>>>>is now clear to me that the ballot center does not enforce any
>>>>>>particular ballot period.  (I also can't find any rules/P&P that
>>>>>>requires them to enforce any arbitrary minimum.) I believe the
>>>>>>center operates to a default -- the ballot being open for some
>>>>>>of time on 10 dates in the US eastern time zone (probably
>>>>>>by the announcement being sent during their working hours).  In an
>>>>>>exchange trying to determine how the ballot center counted "days",
>>>>>>postulate what I thought was a theoretical question asking if the
>>>>>>period would be have to be 10 days (i.e., 10 * 24 hours) or only
>>>>>>calendar dates.  At the time the question was posed, I thought the
>>>>>>ballot center was enforcing a minimum ballot period  what I got in
>>>>>>response was an offer for a SB recirculation period a day shorter
>>>>>>(i.e., days).
>>>>>>I just received a particularly onerous example of what is being
>>>>>>allowed by the ballot center.  I received the announcement
>>>>>>before noon Pacific Time.  The ballot closes on February 2 at
>>>>>>11:59 pm EST.
>>>>>>So, for me, I have 9.375 days to respond (and four of those days
>>>>>>on a weekend).  For many international participants, they
>>>>>>realistically will have much less time with this ballot (many
>>>>>>see the announcement until their Monday morning).  If one or two
>>>>>>you would like to review my proposed rules change text prior to
>>>>>>distribution to the SEC I would appreciate a response.
>>>>>>Bob Grow
>>>>>>Chair, IEEE 802.3 Working Group