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

Re: [802SEC] +++ Current LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results +++ WG Plenary


I vote disapprove.

I agree with Carl's comments of 2 February about a year being a bit
onerous for interims and that 6 months would be an adequate notice.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 19:54
Subject: [802SEC] +++ Current LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results +++ WG

Dear EC members,


Below you will see the current status of this ballot. All comments
received to date are compiled at the end. Please let me know if you see
any errors.


As previously noted, this ballot closes February 2nd (in two days!).  So
far we have one vote.  Please fulfill you duty as representatives to the
executive committee and participate in the ballot.  Don't just show up
at the final vote and express your opinions for the first time then.









Voters                  DNV   DIS   APP   ABS   Comments Provided?


00 Paul Nikolich        DNV

01 Mat Sherman          DNV                     YES

02 Pat Thaler          DNV

03 Buzz Rigsbee         DNV

04 Bob O'Hara           DNV

05 John Hawkins         DNV

06 Tony Jeffree         DNV

07 Bob Grow                   DIS               YES

08 Stuart Kerry         DNV

09 Bob Heile            DNV

10 Roger Marks          DNV

11 Mike Takefman        DNV

12 Mike Lynch           DNV

13 Steve Shellhammer    DNV

14 Jerry Upton          DNV

15 Ajay Rajkumar        DNV

16 Carl Stevenson       DNV


TOTALS                   DNV  DIS  APP  ABS

total:                  -16- -01- -00- -00-



Ballot Comments:







Ivan OAKES []
Wed 1/4/2006 6:53 AM


A change for the better!


There is a typo "much" should be "must" in the new 8.3 section.




Grow, Bob []
Wed 1/4/2006 11:10 AM




I think this is a bad approach to achieve the objectives.  I think the
right way to address quorum is in the interim WG meetings section, and
that roll-on and roll-off of attendance should also be addressed
directly, not in this obtuse manner.  




Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)[mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM]
Tue 1/3/2006 11:30 PM




Once again some excellent comments.  I'd need to think about how to
address them.  The more important question I have is - Are you for or
against the concept?


It is not clear to me from your comments if you are trying to make the
idea work, or believe it should be scrapped on principle.  The details
can be fixed, but I won't bother if people think this is a bad idea.  


WG Plenary have pluses and minuses.  In general it passes greater
autonomy to the working groups which by definition is at the cost of
some unity within LMSC. My opinion is that some groups feel interims
deserve equal status with plenary.  Other groups do not.  This P&P
revision is intended to let WG make the choice for themselves.


There are some areas where I feel it is essential to have commonality
across LMSC.  I happen to feel very strongly about the work the
architecture group is doing.  We also need a consistent process for
handling PAR's and drafts.  Key process issues such as membership and
voting should have a uniform framework.  Periodically all our groups
should meet together.  But how often per year the individual groups meet
and how many of those meetings are designated as 'plenary' I don't see
as critical to LMSC as a whole.  Giving WG some flexibility in terms of
how they handle these issues may smooth some of the tensions that exist
today.  So I'm inclined to push for this revision.


Anyway, I encourage folks to voice their opinions on this change -
particularly the general concept.  I recognize the specifics will need
some work but let's start with the question of whether the idea has
merit first.






Grow, Bob []
Tue 1/3/2006 9:14 PM


I vote disapprove.  This is poorly written, is grossly incomplete and if
approved would introduce significant ambiguity in the document, and
further divergence between the unifying characteristics of LMSC WGs.


General -- This change attempts to make plenary generic for LMSC plenary
or WG plenary for avoiding quorum requirements and for membership
determination.  There are though 74 occurrences of plenary in the body
or the current P&P, most not related to the stated rationale.  A few are
qualified as "LMSC plenary" already, but most others would need to be
edited to clarify that the plenary referred to was an LMSC plenary,
otherwise the ambiguity becomes a problem.


Page 1, line 31 -- At present, LMSC session and plenary session are
synonyms.  This change makes the headings and much of the content below


Page 1, line 43 -- This is an example of something that doesn't make
sense if plenary is generic for LMSC plenary or WG plenary.


Page 2, line 37 -- I don't believe the second sentence of 8.3 adds
anything.  Whether or not WGs co-locate has nothing to do with whether
or not it is a WG plenary session.  I also find the final sentence of
little value.


Page 2, line 35 -- I find the paragraph awkward.  Ignoring my
substantive problems with the proposed change, I would change for
readability as follows:


"In addition to LMSC plenary sessions, an LMSC WG/TAG may hold WG
Plenary sessions. A WG/TAG may hold no more than one such session
between LMSC Plenary sessions. A WG plenary session shall be announced
at least one year in advance; and shall be designated as a WG Plenary
session.  The announcement must include the exact date(s) and venue.

Dates and venue may only be changed during this required notice period
in extreme cases where acts of nature or governments make the venue
unavailable, or prevent attendance of a significant number of WG


Page 2, line 41 -- This introduces inconsistency with  What now
is a "duly constituted WG interim"?  It introduces further divergence in
WG practice.  This does not disallow a duly constituted WG or TF/TG
meeting to be substituted for a plenary, and therefore would allow
membership to be gained in as little as 2 months.  


While many believe accellerated attrition of the member list is
beneficial, it would cut the time for WGs holding WG plenaries to
nominally 6 months while leaving those groups not holding WG plenaries
at nominaly 12 or 14 months.


One can become a member without ever attending an LMSC plenary.  No
participation in PAR review or other items that unify the groups of LMSC
would then be part of their experience.  This also puts us on the
slipery slope of other items that can only be handled at an LMSC plenary
session.  A slope I'm reluctant to approach.


This also makes it even more difficult to maintain membership in two
groups because of more rapid age out.




David Cypher []
Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:23 AM


   In 8.3 there is a much that should be a must, but really should be a

I hope that this is not the typo that Mat fixed. :-)






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.

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