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

RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership


It is possible that what really separates our arguments is semantics.
So let me take a stab at trying to reduce the difference between us
accordingly and see what you say.

First to summarize the argument I will make, a Study Group is a pre-PAR
working group from the perspective of the SA.  As such, the WG should be
treated as a continuation of the SG which was doing the work of the WG
from an SA perspective.  The CS SAB rules you site are consistent with
this interpretation.

Now for the details:

You cite the CS SAB P&P rules for formation of a Computer Society
Sponsor Committee (CSSC) regarding our membership.  I wish to cite these
rules in greater detail for everyone else here since they are relevant
to some of our side issues.  These rules read

<SNIP> Individual Expert
The default requirement for CSSC membership is a direct and material
interest and willingness to participate in the activities of the CSSC,
and attendance of at least two (2)  of the three (3) previous
regularly-scheduled CSSC meetings, except in the case of newly formed
CSSCs, for which voting privileges shall apply to all eligible attendees
at the initial three meetings.  Membership also may be granted on the
basis of written participation, provided that the CSSC P&P specifies the
detailed circumstances of such grant.  Multi-day CSSC meetings shall not
be interpreted as multiple CSSC meetings for purposes of achieving
membership. Except for Organizational Representatives, CSSC Members
shall participate in committees in a manner consistent with their
professional expert opinion as individuals. 



4.7.2 Expiration/Revocation:
Membership for CSSC members (other than Officers) shall by default
expire upon the third (3rd) consecutive regularly-scheduled meeting of
the CSSC not attended by the member, unless there is good cause for an

[A notice should be sent by the CSSC Secretary to the member whose
membership status is at risk thirty (30) days in advance of the meeting
at which the membership would expire.] Membership shall be revoked upon
the second consecutive letter ballot not returned in advance of the
deadline, provided however that a warning notice to that effect was sent
to the Member, whose membership is subject to revocation, a minimum of
thirty (30) days in advance of the deadline of the second letter ballot.
Membership may be suspended upon serious delinquency in payments of
mandatory CSSC fees, provided that the CSSC P&P specifies the detailed
circumstances of such suspension. 


Initial membership issue aside, I find these rules interesting because
they comment on the interpretation of "meeting" and "session" in our
rules (see end of above) and on the membership roll off issue
(4.7.2 above).  Also consider the following parts of the CS SAB P&P
concerning order of precedence:


In the event of inconsistencies between two or more of the above
documents, the document with higher precedence (indicated by earlier
appearance on the following list) shall take precedence: [IEEE Standards
Association procedures are available at: ] 

IEEE Bylaws 
IEEE Standards Association Bylaws 
IEEE Standards Association Operations Manual 
IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws 
IEEE Policies and Procedures Manual, Section 8 
IEEE Board of Directors Resolutions 
IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual 
IEEE CS Constitution and Bylaws 
IEEE CS Policies and Procedures, Section 11 
IEEE CS Board of Governors Resolutions 
IEEE CS SAB P&P (this document) 
Robert's Rules of Order 
Sponsor Policies and Procedures 
Working Group or Study Group Policies and Procedures



3.3 Relation of this P&P to CSSC P&P documents
Default requirement: This P&P document specifies certain default
requirements for all CSSC's. Any changes must be in an approved, written

Minimum/maximum requirement: This P&P document specifies certain default
requirements for all CSSC's. Any CSSC specific changes must be in an
approved, written CSSC P&P. 


Analyzing these snips, the CS SAB P&P clearly takes precedence over our
own.  Strangely they give Robert's Rules of Order precedence over our
own P&P, which must be a mistake.  But more importantly, in section 3.3,
they seem to give back precedence of our P&P over theirs by identifying
their P&P as a set of "defaults" which ours would over ride if properly
spelled out.

Why is this relevant?  On the surface the CS SAB P&P may seem to limit
our membership rules.  However, they clearly give us the right to over
ride these limits should we chose to. 

Returning to the main argument on initial WG membership - To be clear,
the LAN / MAN Sponsor Committee (LMSC) is one CSSC within the Computer
Society.  The initial membership rules you site would apply to formation
of the LMSC, but NOT to formation of Working Group (WG) or Study Groups
(SG) within the LMSC.  It is interesting that the CS SAB P&P do call out
some WG and SG rules.  These read: 



7.1 Chair and Vice-Chair
 The Chair, and Vice-Chair of Working Groups shall be IEEE or
CS-affiliate   members. 

The purpose of a Study Group shall be to determine whether sufficient
interest   and resources exist to develop a draft standard, and in the
affirmative case, to develop the scope and purpose statements for a PAR.
The Chair of a SG shall be appointed by the Sponsor Chair, for a period
not to exceed six (6) months. SGs shall exist for no longer than six (6)
months, at which time the SG shall either submit a PAR to the Sponsor,
or be dissolved by the Sponsor Chair. The SG shall elect officers, other
than Chair, as necessary. 


The point is that while the CS SAB chose to call out rules on the
initial membership for a CSSC, the explicitly did not do so concerning a
WG or SG.

One might think okay, well we should use the rules for formation of a
CSSC as the basis for the formation of a WG.  Before reaching this
conclusion we should first ask, what about a Study Group? In this regard
I think it is important to look at the SA Standards Board Operations
Manual (SA SB OM) which takes precedence over both the CS SAB and LMSC


5.2 Project authorization

No formal activity shall take place after six months from the day of the
first meeting of the working group without formal submittal of a PAR to
the IEEE-SA Standards Board and assignment of a project number (see


6.1.1 Project Authorization Request (PAR)

As part of the initial PAR procedure, the committee or working group
shall appoint a chair (or official reporter) who shall sign a Copyright
Agreement acknowledging that the proposed standard constitutes a "work
made for hire" as defined by the Copyright Act, and that as to any work
not so defined, any rights or interest in the copyright to the standards
publication is transferred to the IEEE.


An important point is that there does not seem to be such a thing as a
Study Group from the perspective of the SA SAB.  And the work and
function described here in 5.2 and 6.1.1 aligns more with that of a SG
than a WG.  So I would argue that the SG plays the role of the pre-PAR
WG.  We could every time we wanted to start a new PAR, start a new WG.
Then if we decided not to pursue the PAR, we would disband the WG.  It
looks to me what we have done is evolved a mechanism where an informal
or disposable WG is formed (embodied in the SG) so that we don't rapidly
evolve and dissolve WG.  

Concerning the CS SAB rules, they are consistent with this approach.
The CS also recognizes the existence of a SG.  And while they call out
rules for initial membership of a CSSC, they intentionally do not do so
for a WG.  Their definition of a SG is also consistent with the concept
of a SG doing the work of a pre-PAR WG.  Also membership rules for a SG
are essentially identical to those called out for the first 3 meetings
of a CSSC or a WG prior.  So if you meld together the SG/WG life cycle,
it actually looks very much like that defined for the CSSC.

So that completes my arguments for why I think that it is only semantics
that separates us.  Comments?



Matthew Sherman 
Vice Chair, IEEE 802 
Technology Consultant 
Communications Technology Research 
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory 
Room B255, Building 103 
180 Park Avenue 
P.O. Box 971 
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925 
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877 

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [] 
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 7:33 PM
To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG

I vote "Disapprove", with these comments:

(1) I disagree with the premise of the rules change, which is that is 
is somehow inappropriate for new people to assume membership in a new 
Working Group. A new Working Group is just that: new. Past experience 
in a Study Group should not be a qualification.

(2) 802 works under the IEEE Computer Society Standards Activities 
Board, which,I assert, agrees with me. The CS SAB Policies and 
Procedures are in fact much MORE open to new participants than are 
the current 802 rules. They read:

"The default requirement for CSSC membership is a direct and material 
interest and willingness to participate in the activities of the 
CSSC, and attendance of at least two (2) of the three (3) previous 
regularly-scheduled CSSC meetings, except in the case of newly formed 
CSSCs, for which voting privileges shall apply to all eligible 
attendees at the initial three meetings."

(3) We should not be trying to hand ownership of a new Working Group 
to those who participated in the previous Study Group. An EC Study 
Group already has enormous power in that it drafts a PAR, which is 
binding on the future Working Group. This gives the Study Group 
tremendous clout far into the future. It's a mistake to grant it even 
more control by trying to block out new voters.

(4) A EC Study Group is an internal entity within 802. A new Working 
Group, on the other hand, oversees a PAR, which is advertised by IEEE 
as a new project. The new Working Group has, inherently, a larger and 
wider audience than a Study Group. An EC Study Group may surmise that 
a new project may have the potential for broad consensus. However, it 
needs to test its perceptions by opening a new project and see 
whether the broader consensus really exists. The looming need to face 
a broad new membership group should provide an incentive for the 
Study Group to actually spend some time thinking about developing a 
consensus. The proposed rules change will make it even more likely 
that we will see, in the future, more of what we have sometimes seen 
in the past: narrowly-defined EC Study Groups that operate quietly 
and try to avoid dealing with the wide panoply of interests. The 
changed rule will further increase the possibility that 802 EC Study 
Groups will become perceived as arcane, closed bodies divorced from 
the real world.


At 11:30 PM -0500 03/03/27, <> wrote:
>Dear EC members,
>Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on 
>WG Membership.  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 per the minutes of that meeting I have 
>change the Section number to  The purpose and 
>rationale for the ballot are as given in the attached document.
>Ballot Opens:  March 27, 2003
>Ballot Closes: April 28, 2003  11:59 PM
>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 much more 
>difficult for everyone else.  If it doesn't work, we will fall back 
>to the old process the next round of ballots.
>Thanks & Regards,
>Matthew Sherman
>Vice Chair, IEEE 802
>Technology Consultant
>Communications Technology Research
>AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>Room B255, Building 103
>180 Park Avenue
>P.O. Box 971
>Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
>Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877

>Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
>	name="802.0- Balloted_WG_Membership_P&P_change.pdf"
>Content-Description: 802.0- Balloted_WG_Membership_P&P_change.pdf
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
>	filename="802.0- Balloted_WG_Membership_P&P_change.pdf"
>Attachment converted: TiDrive:802.0- Balloted_WG_Membersh.pdf (PDF 
>/CARO) (0015FD27)
>Content-Type: application/;
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
>Attachment converted: TiDrive:IEEE-802-LMSC-P&P-Revision-.xls 
>(XLS4/XCEL) (0015FD28)