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

[802SEC] Fwd: 802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Membership & Meeting P&P

Dear EC members

Attached are some comments from Larry Arnett, who is a member of 802.15, related to this motion

Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 15:23:46 -0700
From: "Arnett, Larry" <>
Subject: Comment Submittal: +++ LMSC P&P Revision +++
To: Bob Heile <>
        "Patrick Kinney (E-mail)" <>

Now for my comments on the proposed LMSC P&P revision.

Paragraph 7.2.2 WG Officers


Request for clarification: This paragraph address WG Officer but only requires the Chair to be an IEEE and IEEE-SA member. Is that the intent? Since paragraph encourages ALL WG members to join the IEEE and IEEE-SA, it would seem reasonable for all WG Chairs and vice Chairs to be expected to join IEEE & IEEE-SA.


Statement of Preference: I favor maintaining the term limits for the WG leadership. WG chairs can gain too much influence as time progresses for the chairmanship to become a career position. Even when performance is less than superior, removing incumbents can be very difficult. There are many other ways an emeritus WG leader can serve the good of the IEEE 802 process without holding one office for a decade or more.

Recommendation: Remove "unless approved by a 75% vote of the Working Group."


Paragraph Establishment (under Membership)


Request for clarification: I believe "letter of intent and/or affiliation statement may be required for membership" mixes two items of recent discussion and should be clarified and stipulated separately.

#1 - Within the past two years a policy was brought in to force in our sister  WG 802.11 that members were required to submit a letter (e-mail) of intent to maintain and thereafter become 802.11 members. We were told this was being mandated by the SEC. I have no problem with that and therefore, with regard to letters of intent, the wording "may be" should be changed to "are". Further, instead of calling it a "letter of intent" it seems more direct to call it a "request for membership". The text should also specify the that request for membership must be submitted after meeting the "two out of four" Plenary attendance requirement yet prior to the start of the Plenary session at which the granting of membership rights is expected.

#2 - Recently I have heard calls for public declaration of affiliation. It appears that text of the proposed LMSC P&P revisions enables such requirements if the Chair so decides. I favor required declaration of affiliations since we are an open standards body and often a members actions can be better understood when their affiliation is obvious.

In many of the WGs, there is currently too much ill will regarding consultants and speculation as to who might be a paid vote. This is an old and on going problem that deserves being addressed. Obtaining a 75% or more consensus to move forward on any technical issue requires building consensus and striking compromises. Without knowing affiliation, it is often difficult to understand the real influences on and individual's vote.

I am not familiar with the meeting registration practices outside of 802.11 and 802.15. For these two groups, the Wireless World website requires one to provide contact information which includes company affiliation. By maintaining current contact information on Wireless World we are constantly maintaining our affiliation declarations. I believe for all 802 WGs company affiliation is printed on attendance name badges. I see it as appropriate that all members be able to know who is paying the bills for any other member attending IEEE 802 sessions. Since a majority of the 802 members have their affiliation benefactors name printed on their name badge, it is fair to expect similar postings on consultants' name badges.

I recommend that a second affiliation field be added to the registration process and the information included on the attendee's name badge. When anyone's attendance is provided by or billed (compensation or expenses) to any party other than the affiliation given in the first affiliation field, that affiliation must also be declared. (ie., XYZ Consulting LLC, in partnership with A Very Big Company, Inc.). While more thought is needed on this topic, perhaps consultant who are being funded by more than one client, could disclose their current clients to the working Chair or to a vice-Chair of their choice and then be considered as being truly free to vote without encumbrance. The working group leadership can then monitor to verify the consultant is truly a contributing participant in the work group meetings and not just a vote. Clearly wording would need to be carefully crafted as to avoid many potential loop holes.

I would also request that if anyone, including the chairs, is able to gain access to the wireless world data base of member profiles, then all other members should have the same access. (I will note that e-mail addresses are required for authentication in prevention of list-server abuse. I would favor maintaining privacy of e-mail addresses to help prevent our being targeted by spam servers.) I like to think that within the 802 WGs we work as a team and as such should be able to easily contact one another between meetings.


Request for Clarification: New text associating interim sessions with an adjacent plenary session (within 3 months) that the member did not attend will eliminate the fast track to membership (ie. March Plenary + May Interim = July voting rights.) Was that the intent? Even though I have exploited this rule (because I could) to gain voting rights, I support this change and think it makes good sense.

Further Clarification: How will you determine not attended? I would suggest that if the person failed to meet the 75% attendance rule at the plenary, then an adjacent interim could be used. For example I may use one Plenary for attendance credit for one WG. At the same plenary I may attend some sessions of another WG but have less than 75% credit. I should not be exempt from using the adjacent interim for credit in another WG.


Request for Clarification: Please define meeting hours in "Participation at a session is defined as attending 75% of the meeting hours of a session." I hope any time Sunday, and evenings of Monday, Tuesday and Thursday are still exempt from the count of meeting hours.

Related to this, I often find some TGs will have a slow day mid week and may cancel a session. Once the agenda w\graphic is approved by the WG in opening plenary, if attendees show up at a session which was canceled, they should still be able to receive credit for that session.

I believe there are many good reasons for someone to establish and maintain voting rights in more than one Work Group. Rules should not be enacted that would eliminate the ability to participate in more than one Work Group. 802.11 and 802.15 are too similar to be mutually exclusive. Likewise, with the potential new RE activity occurring in 802.1 and 802.3, some of the wireless members may be motivated to start attending 802.1 meeting also.


Paragraph Loss (under Membership)


Request for Clarification: "Loss of membership is through lack of attendance is determined at the end of each Plenary." Is the current ending session included as one of "the three most recent Plenary sessions"?

Either way, as I read process for gaining membership, an attendee with 75% attendance participation at March and July Plenary sessions could attend the following July Plenary (one year later) and gain voting rights at the beginning of the session and then loose them at the end of the same session. Is that intended? If so, it seems silly.

        Jan-I<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

75% Mar-P


75% July-P






75% July-P --> Voter

        Sept-I --> Non Voter


Renesas Technology - Everywhere you imagine

Larry Arnett
Senior Market Development Manager
Renesas Technology America, Inc.
Advanced Solutions Group
450 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134-1368
Phone: 408.382-7492
Mobile: 408.893-4986



 -----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-wpan@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-wpan@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Bob Heile
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 1:42 AM
Subject: [802.15_GENERAL] Fwd: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Membership & Meeting P&P

Please forwards comments back to me preferably before Cairns

Date:         Mon, 2 May 2005 10:11:21 -0400
Reply-To: "Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)" <matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM>
Sender: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
From: "Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)" <matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM>
Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++  WG Membership & Meeting P&P

Dear EC members,

Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on WG
Membership & Meeting Policies and Procedures. This ballot was approved
at the Friday March 18, 2005 EC meeting. The text is identical to that
presented at the meeting (but changes have been highlighted).  The
purpose and rationale for the ballot are as given in the attached ballot

Ballot Duration:  5/2/2005 - 6/2/2005 @ 11:59 PM EST

WG/TAG chairs, please distribute this P&P revision ballot to your
groups, and invite them to comment through you. Please direct any
comments on this revision to the reflector for collection.

Thanks & Regards,



Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
Office: +1 973.633.6344

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.

Bob Heile, Ph.D
Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
Chair, ZigBee Alliance
11 Louis Road
Attleboro, MA  02703   USA
Mobile: 781-929-4832
Fax:        508-222-0515

Bob Heile, Ph.D
Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
Chair, ZigBee Alliance
11 Louis Road
Attleboro, MA  02703   USA
Mobile: 781-929-4832
Fax:        508-222-0515
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.