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

Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Procedures


	Thanks for thinking of other "output documents" the only ones I
could think of were the PAR and draft.  Those were the technical ones I
could think of.

	I think you bring up some other good points about the problems
with attempting to define "what is technical."  Before we left it to the
chair to make the determination on whether something is technical or
not.  If we attempt to give a precise definition of what is technical we
may have difficulty in generating such a definition. But a phase like
those issues that "can impact the substance of an output document" may
not work.  We have in essence replaced "technical" with "substance."
And of course what we my by "substance" is something technical.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Takefman (tak) [] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:46 PM
To: Shellhammer, Steve;
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting


I also vote NO and I'll come up with a list of my 
concerns. But reading Steve's comments made me think and
I feel it necessary to comment immediately.

While I agree with Steve that "output document" seems vague, 
the set "PAR and Draft" is merely a subset of useful documents
that a WG or TAG could produce that require 75% approval (IMO). 

WG's produce liaisons both internal to 802 and external to IEEE, 
press releases etc. So an output document (to me, and I'd think
the majority of people), means anything that leaves the WG, and 
I see that as the minimum acceptable set.

WGs produce documents for their own internal use that
are technical in nature and affect a draft and so I'd personnaly 
want to see the bar set at 75% for those documents too. 

For example, in 802.17 there was a lot of discussion on simulation 
requirements and methods for benchmarking proposals. The phrase
output document doesn't include a document that would specify how
simulations should be run, nor the minimum acceptable performance, 
yet it is clearly an important document, technical in nature as it will
affect the draft. 

Imagine the host of appeals that would insue if such a document was
classified as procedural as it wasn't an output document and then
someone objects to the draft moving forward when its technical
content was based on simulation requirements that couldn't achieve
75% concensus. 

Our old language was much more open, but that might not be a bad thing
since once you try to restrict things, you end up risking creating
the wrong set of limitations.

I'll think some more about a better phrase then merely output document
but I think a more inclusive term would be better.



Michael Takefman    
Distinguished Engineer,       Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399       cell:613-220-6991 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** 
> [] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 3:26 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG 
> Voting Procedures
> Mat,
> 	I vote NO but will change my vote to YES if the 
> following changes are made.
> 1.	In Section (Chair's Function) change "output documents
> of the Working Group" to "either a PAR or a draft."  The 
> phrase "output documents" is too vague for my taste.  Since 
> those are the two output documents of a working group I think 
> it is better to list them than to use such a vague phrase.
> 2.	In Section drop the sentence "Non-technical motions,
> when allowed, are determined in accordance with parliamentary 
> procedure."  Once again the phrase "parliamentary procedure" 
> is way too vague.  If the working groups want to describe how 
> they hold these non-technical motions using specific language 
> that would be fine, but this vague statement does not work.
> 3.	In Section drop the phrase "at least."  A majority is
> well defined and does not require that phrase, since it is 
> included within the definition.
> 	Just one observation.  In this document the section 
> entitled "Chair's Function" is numbered, but that 
> section number is also used later.  I thin there is a small 
> typo in the section number.
> Regards,
> Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** 
> [] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew 
> J. (US SSA)
> Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 8:16 PM
> To:
> Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting 
> Procedures
> Dear EC members,
> Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision 
> ballot titled 'WG Voting Procedures'. This ballot was 
> approved at the Friday July 21st, 2006 EC meeting. The text 
> is identical to that presented at the meeting.  The purpose 
> and rationale for the ballot are as given in the attached 
> ballot document. 
> Ballot Duration:  9/3/2006 - 10/3/2006 @ 11:59 PM EDT
> WG/TAG chairs, please distribute this P&P revision ballot to 
> your groups, and invite them to comment through you. Please 
> direct any comments on this revision to the reflector, 
> myself, and Al Petrick (
> for collection.  A ballot resolution 
> teleconference will be scheduled for sometime prior to the 
> November 2006 Plenary Session.
> Thanks & Regards,
> Mat
> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D. 
> Senior Member Technical Staff
> BAE Systems Network Enabled Solutions (NES)
> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> email:
> ----------
> 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.