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

Re: [802SEC] WG P&P

Hi Jon,

Thanks for the comments, but I do think we are talking past each other a little.

For those who don't want to read a long dissertation here is what I'm going to do - I'm going to take whatever our current rules are, and stick them into the Audcom format.  I'll only use AudCom rules when I have to.  I don't think this is wise, but I think it is least controversial.

Now for the dissertation:

It has been pointed out to me (both by SA Staff and experience) that Audcom has a difficult time reviewing P&P - especially if they deviate from the 'norm' (as defined by AudCom) or are complex.  IEEE 802 rules do both.

In addition, you note the peculiar habits and history of IEEE 802.  Often the rules we have were created in a reactionary manner to a one of a kind situation.  So 10 or 20 years later we sit here scratching our heads saying 'I wonder where that came from' and praying someone like Geoff actually remembers.  But the reality in my experience is that complex rules can always be worked around, and common sense and reasonable minds are the best defense to abuse of the rules.  When I first assumed this role I used to try to create a new rule every time there was a problem we wanted to prevent in the future.  I soon had a list of about 50 rules changes that needed to be done and realized there was no way I could keep up with the potential ingenuity of rules abusers.   

Today I very much favor 'less is more'.  I'm interested in simplifying the rules as much as possible and relying on reasonable minds (and a solid appeals process) to make sure problem situations are dealt with, but not try and fix every possible problem in the rules in advance.  Aligning our rules with the AudCom baseline is an opportunity to do that.  However I recognize that it can be controversial and lead to a protracted processes.  Not doing it might lead to push back from AudCom due to complexity they don't want to see.  This is what happened with our original LMSC P&P submission which lead to the creation of the LMSC OM.

Bottom line - I'm trying to get us to cast away years of patch work on the rules and start with a new streamlined set.  I'm not asking for whole sale adoption of the AudCom rules - we want to set different approval levels, and add some caveats peculiar to the operation of our group.  But I'm trying to pull away from our 'peculiar habits and history' where the purpose and meaning have become clouded by time, and align ourselves with the direction the rest of IEEE seems to be taking.

I also want to correct one other possible misconception.  I would argue that ALL our WG have policies and procedures - it's just that those policies and procedures are codified in the LMSC P&P.  Some WG had additional P&P that were specific to their groups, but all groups operated under the general WG P&P captured in the LMSC P&P.  All we are really doing is pulling the general WG P&P into a separate document (while addressing AudCom requirements).

Anyway, I don't want to prolong this.  I'll send out a copy of what I have late tonight for review (but it won't be finished yet).  Again, I will focus on minimal change, over riding AudCom rules with our own where possible.  Keeping AudCom rules where we can't over ride them.


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

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Rosdahl [] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:07 PM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Subject: Re: [802SEC] WG P&P

Hi Matthew,
   The sections you note are areas that 802 have very peculiar habits and 
As I do not believe that the WG chairs are asking for you to create new 
(different) rules for these areas, I believe that it would be wise to gather 
the current policies of all the groups, and I believe that at the heart of 
them, you will find a common set.  For example, some of the groups have 
given names to intermediate membership status, but all the groups follow the 
rule requiring attendance at 2 of 4 plenary meetings for voting rights. 
Some groups have more or less interims, and some hold sub-group interims 
while others hold full WG interims.  I do not believe that any of the 
customs of the WG are in disagreement with how the logistics is practiced.

So while sending out the baseline that was provided to AudCom for yet 
another reminder of the starting point, allowed the EC members to remember 
where you started from (last march).  It would be well for everyone to look 
at the progress you have made to help ensure that the common practices that 
are at the core behaviors of the 802 groups as a whole are included.

During the Telecons, we talked about the common core values that the 802 
groups share, and the fact that there are some nuances (personalities) that 
each of the groups have that shape their individual WG behavior.  The 802 WG 
P&P should capture the core behavior/values and the individual Operations 
Manual would be created by the respective WGs to capture that individuality.

As to your questions:
Membership and Meetings:
    Each of the WG attend the 802 Plenaries 3 times a year, and each WG is 
allowed to hold interims with sufficient notice.  The AudCom baseline 
description was not based on this historic practice that 802 has 
experienced.  The custom and historic practice should be a very good start 
to include in the WG baseline.  The 802 P&P say that WG can substitute one 
interim for a Plenary.  That also seems very consistent across WG.   While 
the AudCom baseline says that 50% attendance is sufficient, the 802 EC has 
upheld that this is not sufficient, and that 75% is required for attendance 
credit.  I do not believe you are suggesting a change, but without your 
current draft, we cannot help but point out some of these anomalies.

Specifically, the 802 P&P describes the voting that is to be done at 75%. 
so in the WG Baseline where it has 50% or 2/3, it should be changed to 75%. 
that is an easy edit.  It also describes when a simple majority should be 
sufficient.  This too should be an easy edit.

So Matthew, I hold to the point that while the Draft 802.11 WG P&P that I 
submitted to the EC and you as input and feedback maybe a bit more ".11" 
centric, it does address the Core Values portion, and is a very good place 
to look for at least one way to modify the AudCom baseline.

I look forward to your version and hope that we can get it prepared for 
review and hopeful adoption in July or shortly thereafter.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)" <matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM>
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:10 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.