|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I agree with the sentiment, but not necessarily the specifics. I think the real point I am trying to make is the Chair should also be a member. You should not elect someone who is not a member as chair. The issue of a hibernating working group is a problem that has to be fixed, and my current P&P change does not address it. During the ballot I hope someone will bring this up and propose changes to address it. Personally, if the hibernating chair has been keeping up with things, I don’t have a problem waiving them in. But I think they should be formally waived in. That is, they should be appointed by Paul on an interim basis. Keep in mind that normally WG under go confirmation elections every 2 years. If a Working Group has been hibernating, they haven’t had elections. So, I tend to think elections of some sort (that will probably confirm the appointment of the chair) should be held. I still believe the chair should be a member by normal means. However, participation in the EC counts for participation in a WG. So if the hibernating chair is keeping up, this counts. However, the bottom line is what good is a chair without any members? We need a restart process for a hibernating WG which develops a membership. I think the chair should achieve membership through whatever process we define for other members. I don’t think my current rule would prevent Paul from appointing say Ken as an interim chair. But once the WG is up and running again, if they have not held elections in more than 2 years I think they should have elections anyway.
Honestly, these are just some rambling thoughts. I don’t intend to change any text in my currently proposed rules change, since it was approved for distribution in its current form. I hope to start the ballot by the end of the week. What I ask is that you resurface this issue at that time so it get incorporated in the comments on the ballot. Then we can have a more formal discussion. It is a little tricky for me to track pre-ballot comments, so I’d like to reintroduce this once the ballot begins.
Mat, I have one proposed change to your "proposed rules" based on the scenario of someone "coming out of retirement" to chair a new WG. If we look at the present situation for 802.20, your rules could bar Ken Alonge, the chair of the hibernating 802.10 from becoming the 802.20 chair because he would be "unlikely to have sufficient familiarity with the Policies and Procedures of IEEE 802, as well as the IEEE 802 Standards Association (IEEE-SA), and IEEE Computer Society." Obviously, that would not be the case for Ken.
My recommendation would be to change the words "who is not a member in good standing in IEEE 802,..." to "who has never established membership or is not presently a member in good standing in IEEE 802,..." or words to this effect.
Robert D. Love