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


Again, I have to disagree.

My guess, with many years of experience in IEEE governance, is that there 
would be very little prospect of getting a change in IEEE Sponsor Ballot 
rules to accommodate such a special designation. It would take changes in 
the myBallot software, the Operations Manual and the review process in 
RevCom. There is an extraordinarily deep list of changes queued up for 
myBallot software just to get it fixed to appropriately support the current 

Further, the SA gave up completely on all coordination other than staff 
editorial and metric several years ago. It was too painful and just didn't 

You say:
 >The sad situation we are in, is not something we can fix,
 >just by changing this rule.
That is just my point. We don't need to change the rule. Our current rules 
do not limit the EC to procedural review. I want to keep it that way so 
that it remains within our appropriate oversight to bring such matters up 
at the EC. Getting majority support for any such issue would remain as a 
very significant hurdle, so it is not a slam dunk barrier by any stretch of 
the imagination.

Best regards,


At 01:11 AM 6/4/2008 , Puthenkulam, Jose P wrote:
Dear Geoff,

I agree with the intent for the EC to have more technical oversight over 
the WG's drafts. I also applaud you as the sincere crusader, in terms of 
doing what's best for our body.

At the same time, I feel when a motion is called for a vote, to do justice 
in terms of a technical review of hundreds of pages of a WG draft standard 
without adequate planning, time and in some cases technical background, it 
will be difficult. So the rule change as proposed does not really 
accomplish the intent you are after.

Maybe one approach might be to allow all EC members to submit comments in 
the Sponsor Ballot with some special designation. As this could be treated 
as mandatory co-ordination, the comments could be dealt with by the WGs 
with more seriousness.

The sad situation we are in, is not something we can fix, just by changing 
this rule. Because, I see documents that have barely 75% approval passing 
the EC whereas, documents even with 90+% approval not necessarily making 
it. So with this rule change, I'm highly skeptical that we will accomplish 
much. But we might surely create more hurdles for the development process, 
we never intended to create, especially when we walk down the path of 
interpreting this change.

thanks & best regards,

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