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

Re: [802SEC] WG P&P

One item I noticed was that voting in a subgroups requires being appointed to the subgroup (and the rules don't say who has the right to appoint). I object to that requirement. I think that our subgroups generally allow full participation by all attendees or allow any voting member of the working group to vote or, in the case of 802.1, no votes are taken in subgroups.

Our existing membership rules could be put into 7.2 in place of what's there. I wouldn't consider that a "force fit". I doubt that we want to change our rules to allow 50% attendence instead of 75% for a qualifying meeting. Also, these rules would require more attendence to maintain voting rights - at least for those working groups that have interim working group meetings. It isn't clear to me how the rules in the baseline apply to groups like 802.1 and 802.3 that usually have interim task group meetings rather than a meeting of the full working group. 

I'm concerned that modification of working group procedures in the model is by majority approval. I think that it is more appropriate to have that require a supermajority. It looks like that could be modified to comply with sponsor proceedures if our proceedures required a supermajority. Otherwise, the only modification allowed is to add items.

Meetings looks like it at least needs to change to include meeting as part of the sponsor's plenary meeting since that isn't "as decided by the working group, the Chair, or by petition of three-twentieths or more of the members". Three-twentieths (15%) seems a rather strange amount and rather low. 

-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:11 PM
Subject: [802SEC] WG P&P



I've been actively editing a draft WG P&P.  I'm starting to get into more difficult stuff, so I thought I would solicit a few opinions....


The baseline WG P&P provided by AudCom (attached) often allows us to modify the rules.  Key areas where modifications are possible are:


            Membership (7.2)

            Meetings (10 and part of 7.2)

            Voting (9)


The rules presented there are generally simpler than our own.  I could force fit our existing rules into the WG P&P format (I will force the approval rate to ¾ on some votes) but I'm inclined to let much of the default text stand instead of our current rules.


What do people think?







Matthew Sherman, Ph.D. 
Engineering Fellow 
BAE Systems - Electronics, Intelligence, & Support (EI&S) 
Office: +1 973.633.6344 
Cell: +1 973.229.9520 


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.