|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
3.7.1 Appeals pool
Comment: I don't know what "in good standing with the LMSC and have achieved status through attendance" means. Section 4 defines the LMSC members as the SEC and the sponsor ballot pools. There is no attendance requirement for being in a sponsor ballot pool. Therefore, I assume the intent was a member in good standing of an active 802 WG/TAG.
I also think a broader pool is important as recommended by Geoff, but current WG officers is rather vague because of the inconsistent WG structure across 802. Is the 802.11 Publicity Chair included? Are TF chairs included? Are TF vice chairs included? This probably needs to be limited to the WG officers that must be and are confirmed by the SEC.
The use of the word "may" is a problem also. This implies that a list will be maintained of who is in the appeals pool and who isn't. It is best to define who is in and who is out without the option of may.
Suggested Remedy: The appeals pools consists of:
a. Current members in good standing of the SEC who have attended both the opening and closing SEC meetings at two of the last four plenary sessions.
b. Former members of the SEC who are members in good standing of an active WG/TAG having qualified for member status through attendance.
c. Current WG/TAG Vice Chairs confirmed by the SEC who are members in good standing of an active WG/TAG having qualified for member status through attendance.
Comment: The use of "(Secretary)" is I fear an opening to future ambiguity.
Suggested Remedy: Use "SEC Recording Secretary" for all references.
3.7.4 Appeals panel
Comment: I think the last line should have been edited differently from the source. The text on which this is based refers the matter to the Standards Board for appointment of the panel. The SA Operations Manual lets the same person making initial appointments to the panel make arbitrary appointments when the parties to the appeal can't agree on the panel. For us, I believe the escalation should be to the entire SEC when a panel can't be chosen, not to the Computer Society. I bet the SAB would throw it back if no sponsor hearing was conducted.
Suggested Remedy: To allow the SEC to arbitrarily appoint a panel or to hear the case, I recommend replacing "Computer Society Standards Activity with "the matter shall be referred to the SEC for consideration."
3.7.5 Conduct of the Hearing
Comment: Though the Robert's Rules paragraph is identical to other IEEE rules, I find it a problem. We do not mandate that our groups use any specific version of Roberts Rules [sic] (see 5.1.4). Either we need to tighten up 5.1.4 to be the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (as Geoff suggested), or this needs to be rewritten to recognize that a WG may have chosen another edition of Robert's Rules for their operation. In either case, since most of our appeals come WG/TAG and they have their own rules, we need to also recognize any WG/TAG rules that override Robert's.
Suggested Remedy: Change the last paragraph of 3.7.5 to read: "The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall apply to questions of parliamentary procedure for the hearing not covered herein, nor covered within the rules of the group for the action under appeal."
Change the last sentence of 5.1.4 to read: "The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall be used in combination with these operating rules to achieve this balance."
3.7.7 Request for Re-hearing
Comment: The last sentence has been inappropriately edited, and could be improved over its original source. As written if one complains about a re-hearing, then it is referred to the higher body. The intent is only when the decision is to accept the decision of the panel that it is referred to the higher body.
Suggested Remedy: Change the last sentence of the paragraph to read: "If the decision of the SEC is to adopt the report of the appeals panel, further appeals shall be referred to the Computer Society SAB."
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 7:31 PM
Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on Appeals Process
Dear EC members,
Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on the appeals process. This ballot was approved at the Friday March 14, 2003 plenary session. It is identical to what was presented at the Plenary session except that I have accepted all the redlining (which was relative to a prior draft) so that the ballot now reads against the most currently released version of the P&P. The purpose and rationale for the ballot are as given in the attached ballot document.
Ballot Opens: April 6, 2003
Ballot Closes: May 7, 2003 11:59 PM EDT
WG chairs, if you haven't already done so, please invite your WG members to comment through you. Buzz, please ensure this gets sent to the "802ALL" email list as well. While I encourage discussion on the reflector, I am trying something new this time, and have included a ballot response / comment form. Prior to the close of the ballot, please fill out the attached form with your vote and a summary of your comments. Then send it to the reflector. I will accept updated forms until the close of the ballot. I’m also open to comments on how this process works. Hopefully this will make it easier for me to compile and distribute comments, and not make it any more difficult for everyone else participating in the ballot. If it doesn’t work, we will fall back to the old process the next round of ballots.
Thanks & Regards,