Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Miscellaneous Issues

["Grow, Bob" <bob.grow@INTEL.COM>]

Disapprove.

This is not ready for ballot as pointed out by Mr. O'Hara.  A few
comments follow.

-- Bob Grow


1.  There is no project 802.  Virtually all references to project 802
and P802 should be simply IEEE 802 or LMSC.  

2.  We should chose either IEEE 802 or LMSC as what we use as the
primary name for the sponsor and use it in the P&P exclusively with the
exception of indicating that the names are synomous and may be used
interchangebly.  Our "brand" is IEEE 802, our documents are IEEE 802
standards, but the sponsor for those standards projects is LMSC unless
we rename ourselves.

3.  Clause 3.  There is a lot of stuff here that has nothing to do with
organization.  I would suggest replacement of current text with:

The LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) has grown significantly from the
original IEEE Project 802 that was its origin, but because of its roots
and the family of standards it has developed, it is also widely known as
IEEE 802.  

LMSC operates as a sponsor within the IEEE Standards Association, and
LMSC has reporting requirements to the Standards Activity Board (SAB) of
the IEEE Computer Society (see Figure 1).  LMSC is governed by an
Executive Committee (EC) and LMSC procedures are designed to minimize
overlap and conflict between standards and to promote commonality and
compatibility among the family of IEEE 802 standards.  IEEE 802 project
documents are developed within a Working Group or Technical Advisory
Group.  (See Figure 2.)

4.  Clause 4, item 2.  This should be a replace and that is not clear
from the document.

5.  Clause 5, concern in blue is not covered in the proposed changes.

6.  6.4, I agree with blue note that 6.4 does not belong in membership
but instead in a section, on sponsor balloting (possibly 7.5).

7.  7.1.7, "Every attempt..." should be changed to "A reasonable
attempt..."

8.  7.1.7.5, blue note recommendation is not addressed.

9.  7.2.4.3, Why isn't blue note relocation implemented?

10.  7.2.4.3, b).  We should not create our own requirements for IEEE
recommendations of appropriate minutes content.  This should simply
reference the Standards Companion for appropriate minutes content.  I
believe the "what was agreed to and why" statement implies greater
detail than is recommended.  The substance of discussion is what the
companion recommends, not speculation of "why" a decision went any
particular way.  The distribution requirement should be eliminated or
modified.  It doesn't fit with our electronic process, the requirement
should simply be availability, not distribution.  This also will be
foreward looking to myProject.

11.  7.2.4.3, second paragraph of to end of item c).  What does this
have to do with a WG Chair's responsibiity (as suggested by blue note.
It is a statement of WG responsibilities and only somewhat related to
liaison responsibilities.

12.  7.2.4.4, a) and b) are basically redundant but have not been struck
out.  I don't see the value of having separate responsibility and
authority lists, the responsibility imples authority, and the Chair is
given authority in other areas of the P&P that are not enumerated here.
Merge this list into 7.2.4.3, delete a), and b).

13.  7.2.4.4, f), this should be replaced with something like "Manage
balloting of projects (see, 7.4.2.2)."  

14. 7.2.5.  The proposed edits are incomplete, and I do not think
improve the section because it blurs that there are two deactivation
states (disbanded and hybernated).  If the subclauses are to be switched
as recommended by Mr. Ringle, the second and third sentences of 7.2.5
should also be swapped.

15.  7.2.5.1 does not cover disbanding a WG or TAG that has never
produced a standard, though we have done so.  I don't know if this has
ever been done without going through the hybernation state but it should
also be an alternative.

16.  7.3, why delete the "s" from the abreviation but not the title?
Both should be singular, as should the title of 7.2.

17.  7.4.2, The concerns in blue are valid and should be addressed.

18.  7.5.  This subclause should be deleted unless 6.4 is moved here.
Current content is redundant with SA governing documents, as well as
archaic.

19.  9.1, I am strongly in favor of the deletion of this section!  As
pointed out 9.2 is redundant and could also be deleted

20.  9.3 should be relocated into the section on WG operation/voting as
7.2.4.2.4 and retitled Establishing a directed position.  The remainder
of clause 9 should be deleted.

21.  10.1 needs to be rewritten, and hasn't been.

22.  13, Elevating RROR with a shall is putting all WGs on an
undesirable path, and it contradicts other parts of the P&P.   As
written and placed, this section applies to both EC and WG/TAG/SG
meetings.  Because of the precedence of P&P, this places RROR above WG
P&P which is unacceptable.  I prefer that this clause be deleted.  The
alternative is:  On questions of parliamentary procedure not covered by
the procedures applicable to LMSC or its subgroups, Roberts Rules of
Order Newly Revised (Latest Edition) is strongly recommended to expedite
due process.

23.  14, the last sentence of paragraph is and only belongs in 14.2.
Delete it.

24.  14.2.1.  Our actions as WGs seem to be inconsistent with the first
paragraph.  Is there any reason why this should remain?  The final
paragraph deserves its own heading, as it is often the path for
communication from subgroups for their specific work.

25.  15, this clause needs to be consistent with 7.1.1, h).

26.  18, seems to now be archaic.  IEEE refuses to give us books and we
can't make them, bring into question the utility of the first paragraph
(I much as I resent IEEE's policy change).  If the first paragraph were
deleted to reflect the reality forced upon us, the word "New" should be
deleted from the title.  The second paragraph is also archaic, we are
now sending out CD ROMs in November as well as distributing to
registrants at time of registration.

27.  21, as pointed out by the blue notes this entire section is now a
"huh".  Delete it.


--Bob Grow














-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Sherman,
Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 7:12 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Miscellaneous Issues

Dear EC members,

Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on
Miscellaneous Issues with the existing P&P. 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 text
is devided into two ballot documents due to its size, and to ease
preparation for the ballot.  The purpose and rationale for the ballot
are as given in the first attached ballot document. 

Ballot Duration:  5/22/2005 - 6/22/2005 @ 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 'Miscellaneous' in the subject line to ease the
collection process.

Thanks & Regards,

Mat

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.

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