Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Membership & Meeting P&P
Folks,
I'm a little less organized than usual, and have not yet compiled the
voting list on this ballot. However, the comments to date are included
below. I'll try and get out the list tomorrow around noon time.
As a reminder, this ballot closes on Thursday. If you have not yet
provided your comments / voted, please do.
WG Chairs:
I know some WG reflectors have seen a lot of traffic on this topic. If
you have not already done so, please summarize the traffic to date and
send it to the EC reflector. That way it can be entered in the comment
log and considered for comment resolution. We hope to have some
suggested resolutions and summaries going into the comment resolution
session and will need access to these comments for consideration.
Currently we plan to hold a comment resolution session on this ballot
on:
Friday, 17 June from 11am-1pm ET
Call-ins etc will be provided closer to the date. Please plan to attend
if possible. If you can't attend, please provide a surrogate attendee
if possible, or any additional inputs you may have prior to the meeting.
As usual we are trying to span a range of time zones from the UK to LA.
Hopefully the times selected are survivable. I know Friday is not the
best day for a telecon (particularly in the UK), but I plan to have a
rotating schedule with each of the telecons on different days. This one
just happened to wind up on a Friday.
As usual, I plan to abstain until the final voting since I'm collecting
the comments and proposing resolutions. Below is the summary of the
comments (minus recent inputs from Al Petrick).
Thanks,
Mat
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Received
Bob O'Hara (2-May):
I vote APPROVE on this ballot.
Some comments:
In 7.2.1 there is mention of the "charter of the Working Group". What is
this and where is it defined?
In 7.2.3.1, first sentence: Do we need to define "initial Plenary
session" with "i.e., the first session of the Working Group after the
approval of its PAR by the IEEE Standards Board"?
In 7.2.3.1, first sentence: When do attendees at the first session of
the working group "become" members of the working group? This is not
stated and could be interpreted by later sentences not to happen until
the third plenary session. I think we need to state exactly when
membership is granted.
7.2.4.5: Do we really need this section, at all? Section 7.2.2 allows
the WG to hold an election at any Plenary session with the same 75% vote
that it would take to send a resolution to remove an officer to the EC.
Assuming 75% would vote to ask the EC to remove an officer, that same
75% could vote to hold an election and remove the officer themselves.
Geoff Thompson (3-May):
It all looks good.
I have two proposed changes, one editorial and another which is implied,
but should be formally added.
1) (Editorial) Move "Only members have the right to participate in the
discussions." from the text in 7.2.3.4 to the list in 7.2.3.3
2) (Mildly substantive) Change: "To vote at meetings if and only if
present."
to: "To make motions and vote at meetings if and only if
present."
Somebody else will have to take the formal action to make it happen.
Carl Stevenson (3-May):
I will champion Geoff's suggested changes.
One thing, however, that I think needs to be made clear - while only
(voting) members have the RIGHT to participate in discussions,
non-voters can/should be permitted to participate at the Chair's
discretion (keep the discussion open, but restrict to members as
necessary to keep to agenda/schedule and/or prevent non-voter(s) from
unduly monopolizing the group's time).
Tony Jeffree (4-May):
A couple of initial comments - I may have more once the WG has had a
chance to respond.
While most of what I see here is great, there are a couple of issues
that force me to vote Disapprove, but I will be happy to change to
Approve if they are addressed to my satisfaction.
Firstly, the wording around which Interim can be substituted for which
Plenary seems to be unnecessarily convoluted, and seems to have appeared
out of nowhere (no recollection of this being discussed in the context
of this change before). Apart from anything else, it will be a total PIA
to have to check whether an interim falls within or without 3 months of
a Plenary that the voter didn't have attendance credit for, and for
practical purposes, I don't believe that is how the WG Chairs will
evaluate attendance even if these words are approved (I certainly will
not - updating voting lists already takes way too much time, and this
particular change would be a pain to automate). So I would need the
wording to be changed so that there is no restriction on which Plenary
an interim is deemed to be a substitute for. I don't believe that this
makes any significant change to the overall effect of the membership
rule, so there is no good reason to keep it as stated in your draft.
Secondly, I believe that we should fix the current lack of clarity in
the rules about who is/is not eligible to vote in recirculations. I
believe that WGs currently restrict the voting list in recircs to the
set of voters that were eligible at the start of the ballot (this is
logical - in effect, the recirc is a continuation of the original ballot
process. However, I have already had one comment back from my WG
offering the opinion that some WGs use this approach effectively to
disenfranchise new voters, and suggesting that we cap the number of
recircs at 3, forcing a new full WG ballot if 3 recircs doesn't fix the
problem. I'm not sure that I agree with that proposal, but we could
certainly add clarity to our rules by explicitly stating what the voting
rule is here (which is currently not done).
The text of 7.2.4.2.2 currently contains the only words we have on
recircs, viz:
"There is a recirculation requirement. For guidance on the recirculation
process see subclause 5.4.3.2 Resolution of comments, objections, and
negative votes in the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual."
I would propose we change it thusly:
"There is a recirculation requirement. For guidance on the recirculation
process see subclause 5.4.3.2 Resolution of comments, objections, and
negative votes in the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual. Only
those WG participants that were voting members of the WG at the time
that a WG letter ballot was started are entitled to vote on
recirculations of that ballot."
Thirdly, I support the improvements proposed by Geoff T.
Carl Stevenson (4-May):
I also support the changes proposed by Tony.
Geoff Thompson (4-May):
I suggest we "improve" the clarity about who gets to vote in WG ballot
recircs by adopting wording that is similar to what goes on in Sponsor
Balloting (e.g. the "balloting group" is the WG membership at the time
the document is voted out to ballot -OR- at the time the ballot is
opened). In that way we will further the aspect of WG balloting that is
"training" for Sponsor Ballot.
I support in broad principle Tony's concept of cutting off recircs that
go on forever.
Tony Jeffree (4-May):
The "balloting group" wording would certainly help.
Pat Thaler (6-May):
We seem to have a contradiction between 7.2.2 and 7.1.3, or if not
strictly a contradiction, a situation where a working group could have
failed to reaffirm the current chair and not be able to hold an
election. Even where the current chair is empty (or the working group is
new and has not yet elected a chair) 7.2.2 might block an election.
7.2.2 includes:
A Working Group may elect a new Chair at any Plenary session, subject to
confirmation by the LMSC Executive Committee. A motion to hold an
election must be passed by 75% of the voting members of the Working
Group present.
There isn't any qualification on the need for a 75% approval of a motion
to hold an election. It doesn't appear to matter whether there is a
sitting chair or whether we are at the March Plenary of an even year. I
don't think we have been applying this statement. We have been holding
elections in March of even numbered years or for empty chairs without
first voting on whether to hold an election, but that is what the rule
says and we should correct it.
Take a case where March in an even numbered year rolls around and
reaffirmation of the current chair fails 33% for and 67% against.
According to 7.2.2 it now takes a 75% vote to hold an election. If the
33% don't want a new election the chair is empty - no affirmation and no
election. Or the current chair may have already been chair for 8 years
and the 75% vote to allow the chair to run again has failed.
Take a new working group with a high level of contention. If a faction
doesn't want the group to go forward or fears that the group will elect
a chair undesirable to them, they could prevent an election from
occurring.
A group could be deadlocked - unable to affirm a current chair (or
without a current chair) and unable to elect a new one.
I suggest we replace this text with:
A Working Group may elect a new Chair at any Plenary session, subject to
confirmation by the LMSC Executive Committee. When there is an interim
chair or the current chair has resigned, an election should be held at
the next Plenary. In the March Plenary of even numbered years, an
election is held. At any other Plenary a motion to hold an election must
be passed by 75% of the voting members of the Working Group present.
-------------------------------
I agree with Tony and Geoff here. If we were going to do something about
cutting off recircs that go on forever, I would prefer that we do it on
a time basis (e.g. 8 months from the opening of the Working Group
ballot) rather than based on the number of recirculations. One could,
due to some minor process glitch, have to run an extra recirculation
fairly close on the heels of other recirculations and it would be a
shame to have to run a new Working Group ballot because it moved you
from 3 to 4 recirculations. On the other hand, a group might dawdle on
resolving comments and starting recirculations on a lower priority
project so that the time stretches out. The problem of disenfranchised
new voters (and potentially stale old voters) increases with time rather
than with recirculations.
-------------------------------
(Reply to Guenter Kleindl comments):
I don't understand the member's comment at least for groups that hold
interims between plenaries on a regular basis. There are three plenaries
and three interims (if within the span of the most recent three
plenaries means what I think it intended to mean though I think a strict
reading of the wording could interpret it differently) that can count
toward retaining membership in the working group. If one wants to
maintain membership in two Working Groups and those two groups have
concurrent interims, one can miss two of the six meetings altogether and
attend one Plenary and one interim for each group to retain voting
rights.
For a member with an unusual problem that interferes with attendance
(e.g., a medical or family situation) a chair can use the rule above
"Membership may be declared at the discretion of the Working Group
chair" to resolve the issue. In my 6 years as a Working Group chair, I
did that on one occasion though in the end the member's medical problem
persisted and he was unable to continue.
Those who choose to be a voting member in two Working Groups take on a
heavier burden, but they still need to be able to devote attendance to
both groups to keep up with the work and be a knowledgeable voter. With
the existing rule, one can retain voting rights by attending one fourth
of the meetings and is just too few.
--------------------------------
Based on my previous comments and these comments, I'm voting disapprove
until fixes are in place.
Additional comments:
7.2.3.1
There is no definition of "affiliation statement". I'm assuming that it
is intended to be a way to get consultants and such to state who is
paying for their attendance, but I think that is unenforceable. Also it
is contradictory to the statement above that "members shall participate
in the consensus process ... as individuals, and not as organizational
representatives." A fine statement of principles if unenforceable. The
requirement for an affiliation statement says we don't believe that fine
statement is operational. When a consultant says their affiliation is
self, are you going to contest it? I'm sure I can't vote for that
requirement if you don't define what it is. Even if you do define it,
I'm hesitant to approve it going in.
I agree with Tony's comments about the bookkeeping required for the
"within 3 months of the Plenary for which it substitutes". Also, under
the current rules, many people become voters by attending a Plenary and
the following interim (especially at the start of a new area of work).
These people often continue as valuable participants. Under the new
rule, it appears to me that wouldn't qualify as it could only substitute
for the Plenary they attended. This extends the time to attain voting
rights from 4 months to 6 months (for instance if they attended an
interim in January which they substituted for the November Plenary and
attended the March Plenary they could become a voter in July but if they
attended in March and April they couldn't become a voter in July.) This
seems unreasonable. I think the problem this is addressing was that the
current rule is ambiguous on how old the interim could be. In
particular, it could be argued under the current rule that someone could
gain membership by having attended a Plenary 4 plenaries ago and an
interim before that and requesting voting membership by attending the
current Plenary. At the end of that Plenary they would not have attended
two of the last four plenaries and they definitely wouldn't satisfy the
new rule regarding the three most recent plenary sessions and the
interims within that span. So they would lose voting rights at the end
of the Plenary.
To prevent this, the interim should be required to be within the span of
the three most recent plenary sessions (i.e. the two plenaries prior to
the one at which membership is requested and the one at which membership
is requested) which would be tighter than the old rule but looser than
the draft rule.
7.2.3.2
Please add: Members are responsible for maintaining their contact
information so that they can receive email ballots and can be contacted
if their email is bouncing. Membership may be lost if the member fails
to keep their contact information up to date.
With the mobility of our members, this is a problem that must be
addressed. Also, I believe 802.3 has been applying this rule for some
time and I wouldn't like to see it cause a challenge to progress of a
draft in the future.
"within the span of the three most recent plenary sessions. Loss of
membership through lack of attendance is determined at the end of each
plenary session." It isn't clear to me whether "the three most recent
plenary sessions" includes the current session or is the three before. I
was thinking the latter in my prior email on this, but maybe it meant
only the current one plus the two before in which the comment from the
802.19 participant is correct. I think this would be okay. Our intent is
to ensure voters participate enough in our groups to be knowledgeable
participants. Clearly, this is a greater challenge if one is trying to
be a voter in two groups but it is a reasonable requirement.
7.2.4
There are a number of empty subclauses. I assume the intent is that the
content of these clauses retains its current content rather than that
they become empty clauses on approval of this revision.
7.2.4.5
Okay, I'm confused. The removal process takes a vote of 75% of the
Working Group (presumably at a Working Group interim or at a Plenary
since it says "members present") followed by 30 days written notice and
a meeting of the Executive Committee (which according to our rules only
happens at plenaries since we decided not to allow teleconference
meetings). So this process takes at least two months (given the usual
distance between WG interims and plenaries) and for some groups at least
4 months. But according to 7.2.2 the group could have voted at the
Plenary to have an election for chair which removes the need to write up
an indictment, takes effect within the week and doesn't have the
uncertainty of an Executive Committee meeting on the charges. This
process seems unlikely to occur. The only flaw in that is that 7.2.2
only mentions election of a chair at any Plenary. Vice-chair should
probably be added to 7.2.2's statement on having an election at any
Plenary.
Ivan Reede [802.1] (4-May):
If one reads this well, one finds that optional attendance to interim
sessions now becomes mandatory. Is this what is intended?
I understand you want to age out inactive participants faster, but
moving from not being ousted by not attending 1 plenary and at least one
interim in 8 meetings to being ousted for not attending a plenary and
the preceding or subsequent interim is in my opinion really too hasty.
If we read this right, a person who misses a plenary or an interim
(let's say for business reasons) is automatically ousted from the voting
pool if he's sick and absent from any of the next two interims or any of
the next two plenaries. It also means that if one was sick in the
previous year, he can't miss a single interim or plenary!
I think that's wrong. I certainly hope that was not the intended effect
or that I understand wrong or that the wording will be re-done.
Here is the offending sentence:
Membership is also lost if a person fails to attend one Plenary and at
least one other Plenary or duly constituted interim session within the
span of the three most recent Plenary sessions.
Could you please clarify this?
I would also like to propose that one could consider lack of ballot
response at the same level as absences to two of the last four
plenaries. Therefore, I suggest that instead of modifying the presence
requirements, you simply add to the old text that voting rights are lost
if one fails to attend 2 of the last 4 plenaries as before, while adding
that not responding to a ballot counts to remove the effect of presence
at the last attended interim or plenary. I believe that would really
promote participation in ballots and get rid of non-participants
faster... i.e. skipping a plenary and then, within the next 15 months,
not responding to a ballot would allow the chair to eliminate one from
the voting pool. As non-participants drop out, they usually both miss a
plenary and fail to return ballots. A non-participant who would fail to
participate in a plenary and the interims and fail to return a single
ballot could then be removed from the pool immediately. However, that
would not penalize or put at risk active participants who happen to go
on a business trip during a meeting and fall sick once, during the next
12 months.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Guenter Kleindl [802.19] (4-May):
I have a serious problem with the change in "7.2.3.2 Loss" and the new
wording "within the span of the three most recent Plenary sessions."
Whereas in the deleted "7.2.3.2 Retention" the wording was "two of the
last four Plenary session meetings.
Reason:
If you have voting rights in 2 WGs, then with the change from "four" to
"three" it becomes very hard to maintain voting rights in both WGs. For
example, you may miss only 1 meeting out of 9 (5 plenary, 4 interim), in
order not to lose any voting right!!
Proposal:
Keep "four"
Steve Whitesell [802.19] (5 May):
My comments on the 802 P&P changes:
Clause 7.2.4.5: The title of the clause, "Removal of Working Group
Officers Confirmed by the EC," and the wording in the third line,
"misrepresented by one or more of its officers (confirmed by the EC),"
is a bit confusing, even for folks whose first language is English. One
way of reading this wording is that the discussion concerns only those
officers whose selection is confirmed (ratified) by the Executive
Committee, and that there are other officers whose selection is not
confirmed (ratified) by the EC. Another possible reading of these
phrases is that the "removal" or the "misrepresentation" is something
that is confirmed by the EC.
Also in the first line of this clause, it appears that two attempts were
made to revise the parenthetical "(WG Chair)" to "(WG Officers)", with
the net result being "(Officers WG Officers)".
Clause 7.2.4.6: The first "WG" should be "WGs" as the antecedent of the
pronoun "their". Alternatively, the first "WG" could be changed to "A
WG" along with changing "their" to "its".
802.18 Participant via Mike Lynch (5 May):
Pg 1, "Rational for proposed changes", 1st pgh, 9th bullet: I don't see
any comments/changes related to Quorum in the document.
Pg 3, Section 7.2.3.3 "Rights", 2nd pgh: I don't understand the intent
of the sentence. Is this trying to say that participants in the
formation of a WG (prior to acceptance of the PAR and 5C by EC) have
these rights? OR, is it trying to say - participants in a WG have these
rights while they are 'observer' status (prior to qualifying for
'member' status)?
Sorin Goldenberg [802.15] (9 May):
I have some questions/comments on the attached document:
1. 7.2.3.1 "The interim session must have occurred within 3 months of
the Plenary session for which it substitutes."
Does that mean that if for example one attends the March Plenary, then
participation in May interim will not count for gaining voting rights?
2. 7.2.3.2 "Membership is also lost if a person fails to attend one
Plenary and at least one other Plenary or duly constituted interim
session within the span of the three most recent Plenary sessions. Loss
of membership through lack of attendance is determined at the end of
each Plenary session."
A. The sentence is confusing - and since it is most important it should
be very clear to all members. Does the span of the three most recent
plenary sessions include the current session? If true, it is very
constraining. If not true - what is the intent of "lack of attendance is
determined at the end of each Plenary session."? The lack of attendance
can be determined at the beginning of a session as well.
B. The "duly constituted interim session" definition is missing.
3. What are the intentions for transition from old rules to new one?
Larry Arnett [802.15] (10 May):
Paragraph 7.2.2 WG Officers
---------------------------
Request for clarification: This paragraph addresses WG Officers but only
requires the Chair to be an IEEE and IEEE-SA member. Is that the intent?
Since paragraph 7.2.3.1 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 7.2.3.1 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 that the 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 member's
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
an 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. (i.e., XYZ Consulting
LLC, in partnership with A Very Big Company, Inc.). While more thought
is needed on this topic, perhaps consultants 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 loopholes.
I would also request that if anyone, including the chairs, is able to
gain access to the wireless world database 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 (i.e., 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 7.2.3.2 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 lose them at the end of
the same session. Is that intended? If so, it seems silly.
Jan-I
75% Mar-P
May-I
75% July-P
Sept-I
Nov-P
Jan-I
Mar-P
May-I
75% July-P --> Voter
Sept-I --> Non Voter
Matthew Shoemake (13 May):
There are a lot of nice changes to the rules that are being proposed,
but there is one that I am opposed to. It relates to establishing voting
rights per the text below:
"7.2.3.1 Establishment
All persons participating in the initial Plenary session meeting of the
Working Group become members of the Working Group. Thereafter,
membership in a Working Group is established by participating in the
meetings of the Working Group at two out of the last four Plenary
sessions., In addition, and (optionally) a letter of intent and/or
affiliation statement may be required for membership in a to the Chair
of the Working Group. Participation at a meeting is defined as at least
75% physical presence at that a meeting. Participation at a session is
defined as attending 75% of the meeting hours at a session. Membership
starts at the beginning of the third Plenary session attended by the
participant. One duly constituted interim session of a Working Group or
subtask group meeting may be substituted for a the Working Group
meetings at one of the two Plenary sessions (See subclause 7.2.3.4).
The interim session must have occurred within 3 months of the Plenary
session for which it substitutes."
These changes mean it will take new members 6-8 months to achieve voting
rights, depending on whether or not their first meeting is a Plenary or
Interim. This is caused by the last sentence which says, "The interim
session must have occurred within 3 months of the Plenary session for
which it substitutes." I agree that there needs to be a time limit on
the interim that can be substituted. Something like this would work
better, "The interim session must have been within the last four Interim
meetings and no more than one year preceding the Plenary session at
which voting rights are obtained."
Thanks for considering this comment.
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 10:10 AM
To: 'STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
Subject: +++ 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
document.
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,
Mat
<<802.0-EC_Voting_Rules-P&P_Revision_ballot.pdf>>
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.