Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot - Proposed Resolution +++ AudCom
Mat -
I believe that the existing P&P state, in 7.1.1 Function [of the EC]:
c) Provide procedural and, if necessary, technical guidance to the
Working Groups and Technical Advisory Groups as it relates to their charters.
That is a far cry from the EC making technical decisions. So, while
agreeing with you that 7.1.2.1 a) should stand as in your proposed
draft, I believe that c) should be re-numbered as b), and read:
"b) Place procedural matters to a vote by EC members"
and there is an extra bullet needed, after c), of the form:
"c.5) Put technical matters to the EC so that technical guidance can
be offered to working groups. Where appropriate in order to determine
consensus on the guidance offered, place the guidance to a vote by EC
members. Such guidance is not binding on the WGs."
By the way, I notice that Steve, Roger, Pat, and now me, have
objected to your assertion that the EC makes technical decisions. How
many of us does it take for you to take it on board as an issue that
needs to be resolved by a larger group than just yourself?
The EC makes procedural decisions on technical matters where the
technical decision has already been taken by a WG or TAG. For
example, approving a PAR or a RevCom submission. The only other part
it plays in technical matters is offering technical guidance, if
necessary. If the EC were actually to make technical decisions, there
would/should be provision under existing 7.1.1 that such votes are
subject to the same rule as in WGs, namely a 75% approval. I don't
recall any such rule being applied in the EC hitherto, and I would
strongly resist its inclusion in the future.
The EC is not constituted as a technical body; notwithstanding the
undeniable technical expertise of individual EC members, it is not
competent as a body to make technical decisions on behalf of 802 or
its WGs, that os fundamentally the job of the WGs (jointly or
severally). It is a bit questionable as to whether it is really
competent to offer technical advice either, but as long as it isn't
binding, that doesn't give me too much discomfort.
I know ballot resolutions are time consuming, but proposed
resolutions of the form you have offered here are pretty much
impossible to parse, as they require the reader to find, and then
juggle with, the proposed text, the original comment emails, and your
rather cryptic summary of how they have been dealt with. I would very
much appreciate these summaries being presented in the kind of form
that we expect in WG ballot resolutions, where in one document you
can see each comment along with the proposed resolution and the
rationale for it. 802.3 and 802.16 have developed some useful tools
that simplify this process - I would suggest that you take a look at them.
Regards,
Tony
At 05:51 11/07/2007, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>Folks,
>
>
>
>As a reminder we will hold the usual LMSC P&P review meeting this Sunday
>night. Attached is a proposed resolution to comments on the AudCom
>ballot as a starting point for discussions on Sunday. The primary
>agenda item for Sunday will be to come to consensus on a resolution for
>the AudCom ballot. If you can't make the meeting and have comments on
>the proposed resolution please forward them to the reflector for
>discussion. I will consider all comments circulated during the Sunday
>P&P review. Also, please be prepared to discuss the issues on the
>Chair's Guide as well on Sunday. We will discuss that topic as time
>allows after we complete discussions on the AudCom revision ballot.
>
>
>
>As much as possible, I have accepted the comments people made. In some
>cases, I tried to improve upon the desired changes a bit. In a few
>cases, I did not accept the requested change as I did not beleive with
>the rationale provided was valid. Here is a short list of the comment
>sets and key differences in my proposed resolutions:
>
>
>
>Stuart's comments - Fully incorporated
>
>Steve's comment - I disagree that EC cannot make technical decisions. I
>adopted your other changes.
>
> Added Parliamentarian as non-voting, but that
>may make Bob O'Hara want to reconsider being parliamentarian...
>
> I snuck in emeritus. Perhaps it is time that we
>officially recognize Geoff's non-voting status....
>
>
>
>John Lemon's comments - Adopted all except
>
> I believe it is common parliamentary practice
>for the chair not to make motions
>
>
>
>Roger's comments
>
> Once again, yes, the EC CAN DEAL WITH TECHNICAL
>ISSUES!
>
> See 7.1.1 Function 'Provide
>procedural and, if necessary, technical guidance to the
>
>Working Groups and Technical Advisory Groups as it relates to their
>charters.'
>
> Non members can't formally be entitled to have
>things considered. But I agree on right of Appeal for everyone
>
>
>
>Pat's comments
>
> Again, we can deal with technical issues!
>
> Since some 'procedural votes' such as call the
>question are 66%, let's just reference Roberts Rules.
>
> Your thoughts on appointed positions not voting
>conflicts with other EC members
>
> For now I've gone with the other
>view point
>
> I don't understand your comment on moving Vice
>Chairs serving as Chairs.
>
>
>
>Tony's comments
>
> See alternate resolutions based on comments from
>other EC members
>
>
>
>Mike Lynch
>
> See Alternate resolutions
>
>
>
>Thanks and Regards to all,
>
>
>
>Mat
>
>
>
>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>Engineering Fellow
>BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>Cell: +1 973.229.9520
>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.