[802SEC] +++ Final LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results +++ WG Plenary
Dear EC members,
This ballot has now closed. Below you will see the final status of the
ballot. All comments received to date are compiled at the end. Thanks to
all who participated. Please let me know if you see any errors.
The ballot fails. More importantly there does not seem to be support
for the general concept of a WG Plenary. However, there does seem to be
support for Roger's concept of conditionally eliminating the quorum
requirement for Interim meetings. I plan to provide an updated text
based on Roger's concept and discuss it at the upcoming comment
resolution telecon. As a reminder the comment resolution telecon will
be held:
February 9th, 2006 at 12 PM EST
I will provide dial in info prior to the telecon.
Right now my inclination to keep Roger's text as is with the following
exceptions:
Replace 1 year announcement requirement with 3 plenary cycles
Limit application of this rule to FULL working group meetings (not
task forces or task groups)
Note that any allowance for an interim without a quorum is an
improvement. So I prefer not to push for 6 months and stick with a time
period closer to a year. I hope those pushing for a shorter time period
can see this reasoning and support the longer option. At a later time
people can push for a shorter period, but given at least 1 objection to
6 months, I feel we should be conservative for now.
Regards,
Mat
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 DIS YES
05 John Hawkins DNV
06 Tony Jeffree DIS YES
07 Bob Grow DIS YES
08 Stuart Kerry DNV
09 Bob Heile DNV
10 Roger Marks DIS YES
11 Mike Takefman DIS YES
12 Mike Lynch DIS YES
13 Steve Shellhammer DNV
14 Jerry Upton DNV
15 Ajay Rajkumar DNV
16 Carl Stevenson DIS YES
---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---
TOTALS DNV DIS APP ABS
total: -10- -07- -00- -00-
Ballot Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Jerry1upton@AOL.COM
Thu 2/2/2006 3:54 PM
I also vote disapprove. I agree with Stuart's comments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Stuart J. Kerry [stuart@OK-BRIT.COM]
Thu 2/2/2006 3:48 PM
I am afraid that I too will have to vote disapprove on similar grounds
as Carl, and Mike. I also suggest that Roger has some good ideas for
improvements in his dissertation. A face to face should iron some of
this out, especially as the March session is approaching fast. Please
make the latter meeting at a convenient time that all can participant.
Thanks in advance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Tony Jeffree [tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Thu 2/2/2006 3:26 PM
Roger's idea looks significantly better than the alternatives to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Thu 2/2/2006 2:37 PM
I too am inclined to support Roger suggestion.
When the voting is over, I plan to do comment resolution. But before I
do, I'd like to hear from everyone whether:
1) my original concept had a prayer (ie don't even bother patching
it)
2) Roger's idea is the best way forward
3) We shouldn't be playing with this....
I am particularly interested in the opinion of the larger groups since I
feel they are the most impacted. One difference between Roger's idea
and my original idea is that Roger's doesn't help role people off
quicker from the membership, where as mine would.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Michael Lynch [mjlynch@nortel.com]
Thu 2/2/2006 2:34 PM
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Mike Takefman (tak) [tak@CISCO.COM]
Thu 2/2/2006 1:52 PM
I like Rogers wording, and I'm fine with 1 year although perhaps we need
a little bit of fuzzyness around the timeframe to make it operationally
reasonable and I would change the timeframe to 336 days. Which is
48 weeks.
Consider a group that has an interim that was pre-announced for over a
year and is held January 16-19, 2006. At that session they announce that
January 15-18, 2006 will be an interim session. Ooops, they missed the
deadline for announcement by 1 day (assuming a year is the required
minimum. Having done a small amount of meeting planning I think 48 weeks
is close enough to 1 year to allow for yearly shifts in meeting weeks
without diluting the idea of a long announcement period.
I'd also be willing to lower the window somewhat more, but in my view,
the minimum window of pre-announcement is
3 plenary sessions. So if during the plenary of March
2006 the annoucement is made and posted to the website then its ok to
have a "no quorum" interim session between November and March 2007. That
means you have an minimum window of 8 months, but is more likely 10
months given that interims are generally put 1/2 way between plenaries.
I would vote disapprove on any change that had a window any less then 3
plenary sessions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Carl R. Stevenson [wk3c@WK3C.COM]
Thu 2/2/2006 1:15 PM
I still vote disapprove, but I am inclined to support Roger's
suggestion, which I think is elegant in its simplicity, with the
following suggested
change:
I think that a year's notice may be a bit onerous for interims and
wonder whether 6 months might be adequate notice.
In my view, knowing 6 months in advance that an interim was going to be
held and where seems to certainly be enough time to allow someone to
plan to attend if they want to participate ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Roger B. Marks [r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Wed 2/1/2006 9:02 PM
I vote Disapprove. I will change my vote to Approve provided the
following changes are made:
(1) Eliminate all of the P&P changes proposed in the ballot.
(2) Specify that, in subclause 7.2.4.2.1 "Voting at Meeting,"
immediate after the sentence:
"No quorum is required at meetings held in conjunction with the Plenary
session since the Plenary session time and place is established well in
advance."
the following sentence shall be added:
"Likewise, no quorum is required at interim sessions provided that their
time and place are established and publicly announced at least one year
in advance and that this information is readily available to the public
during that year."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Carl R. Stevenson [wk3c@WK3C.COM]
Wed 2/1/2006 9:27 AM
Disapprove. I also agree with Bob G. (and Mike T.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Tony Jeffree [tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK]
Wed 2/1/2006 7:48 AM
I vote disapprove also - and agree with Bob's comments below.
****** Editor's note - He means Bob Grows comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Mike Takefman (tak) [tak@cisco.com]
Tue 1/31/2006 11:23 PM
I vote disapprove, I essentially agree with Bob Grow.
I have sympathy with the quorum problem and am willing to see that
addressed, but it should be dealt with in the interim meeting section.
I believe that the 1 year pre-announcement period is sufficient to
remove the quorum requirement.
However, I think we need to have a consistent view of aging and
acquisition of WG membership, and creating more plenary meetings is a
recipe for disaster.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Bob O'Hara (boohara) [boohara@CISCO.COM]
Mon 1/30/2006 3:03 PM
I support this change, once the following comments are addressed.
Comments
8.2.1, line 7, editorial: change "Opening Plenary meetings" to Opening
Plenary meeting"
8.3, line 37-38, technical: remove the sentence about groups meeting
together. It is immaterial to the issue.
8.3, line 39, technical: replace "such session" with "Plenary session".
8.3, line 40, technical: the announcement must not only be made one year
in advance, it must be available in a prominent, public place, so that
it can be found with all other meeting announcement information.
8.3, line 40, editorial: replace "much" with "shall"
8.3, line 41, editorial: replace "Such meetings" with "Such sessions"
8.3, line 42, technical: replace ", but should be" with "and shall be"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Ivan OAKES [ivan.oakes@st.com]
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 [bob.grow@intel.com]
Wed 1/4/2006 11:10 AM
Mat:
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
Bob,
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 [bob.grow@intel.com]
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
futher 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 occurances 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
confusing.
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
members."
Page 2, line 41 -- This introduces inconsistency with 7.2.3.1. 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 [mailto:david.cypher@nist.gov]
Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:23 AM
In 8.3 there is a much that should be a must, but really should be a
shall.
I hope that this is not the typo that Mat fixed. :-)
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.