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

Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment action item


I believe that you are incorrect.

I do not think that:
    "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."

When a member of the EC participates in an 802 Sponsor Ballot he/she does 
so as an individual. The IEEE-SA has no special category for those of us 
who are responsible for technical oversight. Further, any comment that a 
member of the EC might put in as part of their fulfillment of their 
oversight responsibility would be dealt with in a forum that has no 
responsibility for anything other than satisfying their own project wishes.

The members of the EC as a collective entity have a responsibility to 
ensure that the proposed draft has fulfilled any promises that were made in 
the 5 Criteria or in terms of meeting their responsibilities to be a "good 
member" of the 802 family.

802 has done a miserable job of fulfilling this responsibility over the 
years. That is, however, no reason for us to write that responsibility out 
of our rules. It must remain procedurally acceptable to bring this sort of 
issue up at the EC when a Working Group has failed to do its job 
adequately. It is already an immense burden to get the EC to act on such an 
issue as the majority is generally inclined to let other working groups do 
anything that they want. There is no reason to increase that burden by 
block it with a "procedural only" rule.

Best regards,


At 10:50 AM 6/2/2008 , Puthenkulam, Jose P wrote:
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 we have

    - Approval of PARs
    - Sponsor ballots
    - WG letter ballots when EC members are also WG members and can participate

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
 > Subject: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment action item
 > Mat,
 > 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.
 > Regards,
 > --Paul
 > ----------

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.