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

Re: [802SEC] Request for WG Strawpolls / Update to 'WG Membership and Meetings' P&P Revision

All / Roger,

An updated revision of this change is attached.  It addresses Tony's
comments as well as Roger's.  I've also changed one thing of my own
accord (to be explained shortly).  All the most recent changes are in

First as already noted there will be a 6 PM meeting in the Dover room at
the Hyatt to review the changes for anyone who has further concerns.

Roger, I had already made changes in the text (restored original text)
that I believed addressed you ambiguity concern (no negative occurs in
the sentence).  I've made no further changes here.

Concerning you newer recommendations see my comments below.  I have
added one additional change in that I have undeleted the text ' Actions
of the WG itself may always be appealed to the EC.'  While this may seem
obvious, I was asked to look into WG Appeals procedures and right now
that one line seems the solution.

Your comments make some good points.  However, I will point out that it
is the day before the vote, and this is the first time I've seen most of
them.  Most of the changes in the document have not changed in weeks,
and very little text has changed since Monday.  I will try and
accommodate your concerns, but I really need people to give me their
inputs early so that I can get feed back from the EC.  I'm not sure how
I can change the process to ensure we aren't making changes the day
before the vote.

Regarding your comment about maturity, frankly if this change is not
mature enough after 8 months, when will it be mature enough?  As we keep
changing it, in some sense it never matures.  Yes, errors creep in, and
we have to make corrections.  The best defense we have against that is
eyeballs, which is why I really need people to participate.  I'll try
and do a better editing job but particularly for complex changes, it
requires review my multiple sets of eyes to really get it right.  At
some point we have to say that a change is better than what we've got
currently in the rule and is accurate to the best of our knowledge.  I
don't think I can justify another 4 months working on this change.   



Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
Office: +1 973.633.6344
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [] 
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 12:30 PM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Request for WG Strawpolls / Update to 'WG
Membershipand Meetings' P&P Revision


I have serious reservations about much of the 
language in this rules change. Ih have become 
doubtful that it is sufficiently mature.

I previous mentioned the ambiguity in the 
membership retention language. Here are more 

*I am dead-set against the proposal to strike 
"Working Group members shall participate in the 
consensus process in a manner consistent with 
their professional expert opinion as individuals, 
and not as organizational representatives." This 
is a bedrock principle of 802. Why kill it?

MAT>  It was not killed, it was moved to the top of the section.  But
somehow during the editing process (months ago at this point I think)
the text fell out of the new location.  I will restore it where it
currently sits.

*Page 3, Line 3: "The interim session must have 
occurred during the interval of the last three 
Plenary sessions." The "three" should be "four", 
for consistency, if we revert to the two-of-four 

MAT>  Agreed.  This slipped through the cracks.

*I cannot accept the language "Participation at a 
session is defined as attending 75% of the 
meeting hours as determined by the WG Chair." 
This is an invitation to the Chair to institute 
an arbitrary implementation. Moreover, 
participation should be defined by the WG 
procedures, not by the WG Chair. Besides, there 
is no clear definition of "meeting hours", 
especially when parallel meetings occur. I can 
accept "Participation at a session is defined as 
attending 75% of the session according to defined 
WG procedures."

MAT>  Currently, not all WG have formal procedures.  The chair makes
procedural decisions.  Therefore I believe this should stand.

*On Page 2, Line 17 refers to "first Plenary 
session of the next even numbered year" but line 
28 refers to "the March Plenary of even-numbered 
year." I think we should change "March" to 
"first", for consistency and to cover the 
possibility of an unexpected schedule shift.

MAT> Agreed.


At 12:38 AM -0500 05/11/14, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>For the 'WG Membership and Meetings' revision, the requirement for a WG
>P&P was removed which should increase the approval level.  The changes
>in the WG membership gain / loss remain.  However a number of 802
>members have expressed concern.  The request from the Chair of 802  and
>myself is that:
>ALL WG POLL THEIR MEMBERSHIP concerning the following issue:
>For the first line of the 'Loss' clause do the membership prefer:
>       "Membership is lost if a person fails to meet the participation
>requirements of the Working Group at two out of the last THREE Plenary
>       "Membership is lost if a person fails to meet the participation
>requirements of the Working Group at two out of the last FOUR Plenary
>Please provide feedback to me by end of day Wednesday on the result of
>the straw polls.  The current revision of the change is attached.
>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/octet-stream;
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
>Attachment converted: Little 
>Al:802.0-WG_Membership_&#43E32.pdf (PDF /<IC>) 

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