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

Re: [802SEC] Draft update for LMSC P&P as of 7/25/03



Mat-

Re: The appeals process

1) re:
3.7 Appeal and complaint process
Every attempt should be made to resolve concerns informally, since it is recognized that a formal appeals process has a tendency to negatively, and sometimes permanently, affect the goodwill and cooperative relationships between and among persons.
It isn't "that a formal appeals process has a tendency to negatively, and sometimes permanently, affect...goodwill"

It isn't the process that affects goodwill.
It is either the "appeal" or the "exercise of the appeals process" that does the deed.

2) re:          3.7.3
There is no parallel requirement that the appellee brief be copied to the appellant.

3) re:          3.7.4
If the parties to the appeal cannot agree on an appeals panel within a reasonable amount of time, the whole matter shall be referred to the full EC for Consideration.
I don't know what this means. does it mean that the entire EC is the appeals panel or does it mean that the entire EC considers whether to kick it up to the SAB or ???

This should be pretty straight-forward. There should be a standing list of people in the appeals pool and any time there is a threat of an appeal "somebody" (who?) should cross off the disqualified members of the pool.

Also, it doesn't say how the chair of the panel is chosen. That needs to be specified.
I can think of 2 reasonable possibilities
        a) The party that is acceptable to each side
        b) That it is the right of the EC Chair to choose.

4) re:          3.7.5
The rules contained in the current edition of Robertís Rules of Order Newly Revised (latest edition) shall apply to questions of parliamentary procedure for the hearing not covered herein.

should be:
The appeals panel chair shall consult rules contained in the current edition of Robertís Rules of Order Newly Revised (latest edition) for questions of parliamentary procedure for the hearing not covered herein.

5) re:          3.7.6
....with reasons there for,
should be:
....with reasons therefore,

and also a/b/c makes no mention of disposition of whatever requests were made for remedial action.

6) re:  3.7.7
There seems to be no requirement that if there is a request for a rehearing that there be some rationale required to justify the rehearing.

Cheers,

Geoff

At 11:05 PM 10/12/2003 -0400, mjsherman@research.att.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,

Sorry things have taken so long but I ve been otherwise occupied lately.

Attached please find a draft of the LMSC P&P which includes all revisions approved as of 7/25/03.  It is redlined to highlight the changes. Please feel free to examine it and identify any errors in the editing you may find to me.  I plan to release the final version of this document in about 2 weeks.

Thanks,

Mat 

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
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com


a725e03.jpg Draft_LMSC_P&P_-_July_2003_R0.pdf