Re: [802SEC] Revised LMSC P&P dated November 05
Mat and Geoff,
1. I have accepted the list of regulatory documents as unavoidable, but I don't see how any of us could be expected to be running our groups to the agglomeration of so many sets of rules. I know I haven't read and kept up to date on the IEEE Constitution, Bylaws, policies, etc much less their BOG resolutions much less NY Not-For-Profit Corp law. To some extent, I'm willing to take it on faith that the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws and Operations Manual are compatible with the rules above them such that if I follow the rules in them I'm operating in a way that is consistent with the documents that are above them in the hierarchy. But that still leaves the CS documents. How many of us have read the CS Constitution, Bylaws, P&P and resolutions such that we can be sure we are following them?
I also don't understand in what sense we currently have a reporting relationship to the IEEE Computer Society. Many years ago when I joined IEEE 802 we were "Project 802" and at least nominally through the Computer Society as our sponsor. Over the years, the rules changed or we grew to the point where the LAN/MAN Standards Committee was a sponsor. We submit our projects directly to the Standards Board and not through the CS SAB as Figure 1 implies.
This discrepancy has bothered me for a while but it seemed better to focus on items that were actual operational problems. This material doesn't accurately portray the way we operate, but it hasn't, as far as I'm aware, caused problems.
7.1.1 g) Functional requirements - we don't manage or use that document any more so it should have been dropped.
7.1.3.3 Geoff, the difference between simple majority and the rules for forwarding PARs and drafts is the effect of abstentions. For the general rule, a vote of 6-5-3 would pass - it is a simple majority where the approves/(approve + disapprove) is greater than 50%. For forwarding a PAR or draft, that same vote would fail. There were 6+5+3=14 EC members present with voting rights so 8 in favor is required to meet the rule for approval of a majority of EC members present with voting rights.
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@NORTEL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 12:58 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Revised LMSC P&P dated November 05
Mat-
Lots of minor edits and a few of the comments are major objections.
I made it as far as clause 8.1 before I ran up against your deadline.
The comments are entered as Post-its on the PDF
(Since you STILL did not provide line numbers) :^)>
Geoff
At 07:57 PM 12/4/2005 , Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>Folks,
>
>
>
>Attached please find an updated to the LMSC P&P based on changes
>approved in November 05 (with rev's on and off). I will wait till the
>January 4th. If I hear no objections, I will do minor format updates
>and have this version posted.
>
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>
>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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.