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

[802SEC] FW: Notes on Membership rules change

Hi Everyone,

I've been trying to collect additional inputs on the membership rules
change.  Here are my latest inputs from Bob Grow.  I will include them
in the overall ballot resolution.


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: Grow, Bob [] 
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 3:28 PM
To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
Subject: Notes on Membership rules change


1.  There is an outstanding problem with the asymmetry of time required
to gain verses loose membership.

2.  LMSC rules needs to recognize (at least) four study group paths
ending with a PAR:  ECSG -> WG, WGSG->WG,  WGSG->TF and ECSG->TF.  I
believe it should be the WG's choice if WGSG attendance qualifies for
its own WG membership (I believe this can be done under Chair's
discretion currently and should not be precluded by your change).  If
WGSG->ECSG or WG, then it must be clear that separate attendance records
must be kept for the WGSG (as CON for my support of your change).

3.  Retention and establishment rules must accommodate a short history.
If new WG doesn't have a four plenary history as SG, how is membership
establishment/retention applied? (I assume you would want the
concatenation of SG and WG attendance to continue to be used for
establishment and retention so someone could become a member at the
second meeting where under current rules, no one can become a voter at
the second WG meeting by attendance.  The proposed change makes it
possible in the case of a short term SG that the initial WG membership
will be very small because of the attendance at other WGs rule (this is
also a CON for me since it opens the possibility of an unacceptably
small WG membership for a period).

The more I think about it now, it seems quite difficult to properly
cover the corner cases.  These difficulties make it harder to argue
against Geoff's position about when the technical experts will really
show up.  All I can find personally on the PRO side is that the concept
feels right and that it might help prevent the hijacking of a project.