Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Miscellaneous Issues
I support Bob's comments. In particular, making RR mandatory is unacceptable.
At 08:31 16/06/2005, Grow, Bob wrote:
>This is not ready for ballot as pointed out by Mr. O'Hara. A few
>-- 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
>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
>8. 184.108.40.206, blue note recommendation is not addressed.
>9. 220.127.116.11, Why isn't blue note relocation implemented?
>10. 18.104.22.168, 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. 22.214.171.124, 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
>12. 126.96.36.199, 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 188.8.131.52, delete a), and b).
>13. 184.108.40.206, f), this should be replaced with something like "Manage
>balloting of projects (see, 220.127.116.11)."
>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. 18.104.22.168 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
>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
>22.214.171.124.4 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
>23. 14, the last sentence of paragraph is and only belongs in 14.2.
>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.
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Sherman,
>Matthew J. (US SSA)
>Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 7:12 AM
>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
>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.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.