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

Re: [802SEC] Comment resolution on LMSC P&P ballot titled 'LMSCOrganization'

I had interim meeting responsibilities that prevented me joining the
call.  While I agree that when the WG is formed is ambiguous, making it
explicitly clear that the formation is immediate creates a chicken and
egg problem.  A few corner cases to consider (this this either
complicates or does nothing to address). the initial meeting and membership has been a thorny one with
mulitple problems.  I believe thout it attempts to create the WG at the
first meeting, not immediately.  With the change you have a WG on PAR
approval, but no one is a member of the WG.

There is no stipulation that the initial meeting must be at a plenary
meeting.  Therefore, for example, if a group wanted to meet in May after
March PAR approval, would that interim meeting be the one where
membership is established.  Yet, if that is a WG meeting, it can't have
elections since 7.2.2 only allows Chairs to be elected at a plenary

If we are going to fix it, I don't think this is the best way.  My

1.  The LMSC Chair can appoint an initial Chair who has responsibility
to direct the organization of the WG.
2.  The initial session of a WG should be at a plenary.
3.  The agenda of the initial session whould include election of a Chair
and Vice Chair.  I favor those elections being at the end of the session
after 75% session participation could be measured.
4.  Obviously with the above, I would change "participate in the first
meeting" to "All persons satisfying 75% participation for the first
session become members of the Working Group."  Mandating the election
for the final meeting of the session allows WG membership to be
established and reduces "packing the room" problems for the initial
5.  Consistent with subsequent elections, the newly elected Chair does
not take office until confirmed by the EC.
6.  The bottom line then is that the WG doesn't exist until its
organizational meeting.


-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Thaler [mailto:pat_thaler@AGILENT.COM] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Comment resolution on LMSC P&P ballot titled

I have no objection. Roger's text addresses the concerns about the
language that were raised during the meeting, i.e. it replaces the
somewhat ambiguous "where appropriate" with a definition of when it
happens. Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 4:37 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Comment resolution on LMSC P&P ballot titled


Are there any objections to Roger's comments?  I have none, and will
implement them in an updated resolution next week if I have heard no



Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
Office: +1 973.633.6344
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [] 
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 1:48 AM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Comment resolution on LMSC P&P ballot titled


I'm finding the color-coding tough to decipher. 
So, please tell me if this version would 
introduce this line:

"When appropriate, a new working group is formed 
following approval of a PAR by the IEEE-SA 
Standards Board."

I think that this language would waste an 
opportunity to clarify the text. The P&P has 
always been ambiguous on this issue, and I think 
this language still is. Does it mean that a new 
WG is effective immediately upon the PAR 
approval? Or does it mean that the EC can form a 
new WG after the PAR is approved?

I think it should mean the former. The name of 
the WG is an element of the PAR. If the SASB 
approves a PAR that was forwarded by 802 and that 
includes the name of a WG that had not previously 
existed, then I think the WG should come into 
existence immediately. There is no point to defer 
the decision, because the EC already made the 
decision when it forwarded the PAR.

So, I would suggest this language: "If the 
IEEE-SA Standards Board approves a PAR, forwarded 
by the LMSC, that assigns the work to a new LMSC 
Working Group, that Working Group shall 
immediately come into existence."

Another comment: "A study group may meet for up 
to two plenary cycles, at which point a PAR is 
expected to be submitted to the EC for 
consideration." should be moved to the section on 
Study Groups. A SG reading the P&P could easily 
miss this instruction entirely if it sits under 


At 21:44 -0400 2005-10-16, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>We had a very low turnout on Tuesday (Thanks Pat and Steve!).  However
>we reviewed the 'LMSC Organization' and sub-ballot titled 'when
>appropriate'.  We decided to slightly modify the first line of 'LMSC
>Organization" with 'When appropriate' and eliminate the sub ballot.  We
>reviewed the entire document, and did not see any other issues.  Please
>review the LMSC Organization ballot.  It is identical to what we had in
>July except for the one change mentioned.  I assume if I hear nothing
>back in the next week or so that you will all support it in November!
>PS - I will review all the changes in light of the updated P&P and do
>editorial updates to the P&P ballots to reflect those changes prior to
>the Plenary.
>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.
>Content-Type: application/msword;
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
>Attachment converted: Little 
>Al:802.0-WG_LMSC_Organiz#A70D0.doc (WDBN/<IC>) 

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.