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

Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ AudCom

Mat -

Please change my vote to disapprove. In addition to comments already 
submitted by others, much of which I support, please note the following: (a) and (a): "Decide which matters are procedural and 
technical".  This is incorrectly stated. I believe the intent is 
"Decide which matters are procedural and which matters are 
technical". Re-word accordingly. (g) and (g): "Set goals and deadlines and adhere to 
them". Nice sentiment, but adherence to deadlines isn't necessarily 
under the Chair's control. Re-word as "Set goals and deadlines". I don't believe that giving a technical opinion is the only 
reason that a Chair might wish to be recused. Change "i.e.," to "e.g.,".


At 22:19 24/06/2007, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>I vote Disapprove, with comments below. I'd like to acknowledge
>Phillip Barber, an 802.16 member who worked with me on these comments.
>I also support most of the disapprove comments I've seen from other
>EC members.
>Comment 1:
>The proposed would be an extremely radical change to EC
>operation. Such a change is totally unwarranted and is not in any way
>motivated by the relevant rationale presented along with the ballot:
>"A clarification of the responsibilities of the Chair."
>In particular, the existing P&P defines the EC as a procedural body,
>not a technical body. For example, 7.1.1(e) gives the EC the
>authority to "Examine and approve Working Group draft standards for
>proper submission to Sponsor ballot group...; not for technical
>The proposed would put all procedural issues in the
>hands of the EC Chair. What, if anything, does this leave to the EC?
>Given that the function of the EC is to administer the process,
>procedural decisions belong to the EC. It is inappropriate to
>delegate them to the Chair. It is the right and duty of the EC as a
>whole to make all such decisions, though they as a group may elect to
>delegate that right on individual matters.
>Finally, the LMSC Chair puts these matters to the LMSC EC members for
>vote, not to the WG Members.
>Remedy 1:
>Modify the proposed changes as:
> LMSC Chair
>The LMSC Chair has the following responsibilities:
>a) Decide which matters are procedural and technical
>b) Decide procedural matters
>ca) Place technical issuesmatters to a vote by WGLMSC EC membership.
>db) Lead the participants according to all of the relevant policies
>and procedures
>ec) Entertain motions, but not make motions
>fd) Delegate necessary functions as needed
>ge) Set goals and deadlines and strive to adhere to them
>hf) Prioritize objectives to best serve the group and the goalsentire
>LMSC membership
>ig) Seek consensus of the Sponsor if required as a means of resolving
>Comment 2:
>The ballot rationale explains that one reason for the ballot is to
>address an AudCom concern regarding the need for  " A better
>description of the rights of the participants and due process."
>This This AudCom requirement has not been met, or even addressed, by
>the proposed revisions. ANSI due process requirements apply to all
>those "with a direct and material interest", regardless of
>membership. I believe that AudCom is telling us to recognize those
>Remedy 2:
>Add the following text at the end of
>In addition, all participants, regardless of membership, shall be
>entitled to due process and have the rights to:
>  (a) express a position and its basis
>  (b) have that position be considered
>  (c) appeal (7.1.6)
>  (d) access information on the activities of the LMSC and its
>subgroups in a timely manner
>  (e) bring matters to the attention of the group for consideration
>No action of the LMSC or of its officers shall abridge these rights.
>Comment 3:
>The ballot rationale relates to the rights of the participants and to
>the functions of the WG Chair. These issues intersect in,
>which specifies the Chair's function, giving the Chair extraordinary
>powers to rule matters as procedural and to decide procedural issues.
>To protect the rights of the members, the P&P should offer some
>specifications regarding the distinction between technical and
>procedural issues.
>Remedy 3:
>In subclause , modify the text as follow:
> Chair's Function
>The Chair of the Working Group decides procedural issues. The Working
>Group members and the Chair decide technical issues by vote. The
>Working Group Chair generally decides what is procedural and what is
>technical. However, any matter regarding the establishment or
>modification of a PAR or that would make a non-editorial change to a
>draft standard shall be a technical issue.
>Comment 4:
>The ballot rationale refers to "the lack of requirement to act in
>accordance with the IEEE Code of Ethics. This requirement for conduct
>should be added to the P&P." The proposed revision does not directly
>address this issue. It references the Code of Ethics only by adding
>material to 8.4; since 8.4 addresses sessions, the change would
>apparenty apply only to sessions. Furthermore, the proposed 8.4
>doesn't address the Code of Ethics at all; it simply says that
>participants will allow other participants "a fair and equal
>opportunity to contribute." This completely misses the point of the
>IEEE Code of Ethics.
>Remedy 4:
>Eliminate the text "in accordance with the IEEE Code of Ethics" from
>the proposed addition of 8.4.
>Add a subclause 6.5:
>6.5 IEEE Code of Ethics
>All participants in the LMSC and its subgroups, regardless of
>membership status, shall act in accordance with the IEEE Code of Ethics.
>Comment 5:
>It is not within the power of the WG Chair to ensure that deadlines
>are met.
>Remedy 5:
>Modify the proposed changes as:
> LMSC Chair
>g) Set goals and deadlines and strive to adhere to them
>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.