Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment action item
Dear Paul, All,
I've some thoughts to share on this.
During the conf. call I did hear someone mention that, for technical
comments the EC members should participate in the Sponsor Ballots or in
some cases WG ballots also as technical experts. I think that is most
appropriate way to engage technically with regards to the technical
content of the WG drafts.
Here is my rationale for this:
1.During a motion to move the WG draft to the sponsor ballot stage, if
technical comments get generated by the EC, then we do not have an
effective process to deal with them other than the WG letter ballot
itself. So we should avoid creating more work than necessary here.
2.The IEEE Sponsor ballot is the place outside the WG for engaging
technically and addressing all comments including architectural
consistency issues etc and matters the EC is interested in overseeing.
3.So while I very much feel the EC members should have some technical
oversight over WG activities including content of the drafts, I think
that oversight should be undertaken as part of the existing procedures
- Approval of PARs
- Sponsor ballots
- WG letter ballots when EC members are also WG members and can
So I feel when a motion is made at the EC to forward the WG draft to
sponsor ballot, may not be the time for the EC members to engage in
technical review of the content. Instead the focus should be the review
of the WG ballot procedures and comment resolutions including approval
rate, disaapproves etc.
So maybe we should leave the existing wording for OM 3.1.1 as is.
However, maybe some other place we could add some clarity in terms of
the technical oversight responsibility if it is not there already.
Hope this helps,
Thanks & Best Regards,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> Paul Nikolich
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:56 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment action item
> Per today's call, I had the action to provide alternative
> wording to the OM 3.1.1.e "Examine and approve WG draft
> standards for proper submission to Sponsor ballot group; not
> for technical content.
> I suggest the deletion of "; not for technical content"
> Implementing the deletion maintains consistency with the OM
> 3.1.1.c "Provide procedural and, if necessary, TECHNICAL
> GUIDANCE to the WG and TAG as it relates to their charters."
> (emphasis added)
> Altough the 'technical guidance' component of the EC funtions
> tends to be secondary to procedural guidance, it is an
> important component, especially when trying to maintain
> architectural consistency across a Sponsor which grows to the
> size and breadth of 802.
> 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.