Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ LMSC Procedures and Policies
- To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
- Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ LMSC Procedures and Policies
- From: "Grow, Bob" <bob.grow@INTEL.COM>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:31:29 -0700
- Reply-To: "Grow, Bob" <bob.grow@INTEL.COM>
- Sender: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>
- Thread-Index: AcVYfPeavhhK/DX/QKOnKxygNn164wYl71dA
- Thread-Topic: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ LMSC Procedures and Policies
The numbering seems to be seriously messed up, or at least the
presentation of these changes gives that appearance.
Procedure 21, list item a) (binding). I do not believe this requirement
provides any benefit except to those that may be looking for a way to
appeal project progress.
7.5, 2nd sentence of proposed first paragraph (binding). This adds a
new requirement to SA process, specifically that there be a comment
resolution group (AKA in SA documents as BRC). Replace with: "Comments
received during Sponsor Ballot are to be considered in a manner
consistent with IEEE-SA requirements and as determined by the Working
7.2.1 , 2nd paragraph (non-binding). This is somewhat vague about
conditional approval. Should be changed to read "at the time of EC
approval or conditional approval for sponsor ballot.
7.2.1 , 2nd paragraph (binding). I don't understand what it means for
the WG to confirm the Five Criteria. Isn't the WG ballot that
confirmation for initialting Sponsor ballot? As written, the
confirmation in Sponsor ballot is much worse, by my interpretation, this
requires a WG vote after the final Sponsor ballot and I don't agree with
this delay to the process.
7.2, 2nd paragraph (binding). I only believe a tutorial should be
required for a PAR establishing a new WG or one that changes the
charter of the WG. I don't believe it is practical to make this a
requirement for all new major work. As written it is also too
subjective to enforce other than as justification for an negative EC
vote. For example, I believe the Power over Ethernet Plus work is
major, but certainly not changing anything we haven't done before or I
would think of general need for justification for PAR approval.
-- Bob Grow
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Sherman,
Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:05 AM
Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ LMSC Procedures and
Dear EC members,
Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on LMSC
Procedures and Policies. 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: 5/14/2005 - 6/14/2005 @ 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 EC reflector for collection. Please
maintain the words 'LMSC Organization' in the subject line to ease the
Thanks & Regards,
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.