Re: [802SEC] Status on WG P&P Editing
This looks like a great start. Here are a few comments and thoughts.
I would suggest that all of clause 3.2 in the LMSC OpMan is a candidate for moving to the WG P&P.
I have a question of what should be left in the LMSC P&P vs. moved to the WG P&P. If the LMSC P&P defines the WG, then the WG P&P should define the operation. with this idea, then the paragraph on hibernating WG would not be needed in the WG P&P. Then the current LMSC P&P would not need much changing...just a thought.
Clause 6.2 of the WG_P&P... The first paragraph should probably be later in the subclause.The Election of Officers should be restructured. The paragraph order should be from the nominal to the exceptional.
WG P&P 7.1:
the statement in question only indicates how a participant can gain membership. I don't see this as overly constricting.
WG P&P 7.2.1 Establishment
Change "...75% presence at a meeting..." to "... 75% presence at a session..."
WG P&P 7.2.2 Retention...
I would believe that "One duly constituted interim WG or task group..." should be changed to "One duly constituted interim WG session..." Also the final "meeting" should be changed to "session".
(As an aside, while we are messing with definitions, we could always change sessions and meetings to match what is defined in most other organizations....i.e. Meetings have sessions, not the other way around as we have defined in 802.... just a thought, not a request).
7.2.5 Meetings and Participation
This clause is an other example of where the "session" and "meeting" may be confused...
7.3 Subgroups of the Working Group
This clause should indicate that the WG OM has description of how the subgroups are formed. Currently in the 802 WGs, subgroups are differently defined. Task Groups, Task Forces, as well as other Committees are formed to facilitate the work of the WG.
9.1 Approval of an Action
The EC should make the choice of 2/3 or 3/4 vote. This clause also has a potential problem with "session" vs. "meetng".
This is another clause where "session" and "meeting" may be confused. The last two paragraphs seem to be in the wrong Clause. Balance and affiliation should be in different clause. I would suggest 7.2.5 as a target for the affiliation requirement. Although it is interesting that we declare in 7.2.1 that WG members are professional expert individuals, and not representatives, so how can one represent others...
I know I have hit the hot button, but somehow we should reconcile this contradiction.....
Again I want to say that you have a great start and now we all can all help polish and work out the final language.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
To: Jon Rosdahl ; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:48 PM
Subject: Status on WG P&P Editing
Jon / EC Members,
Attached please find my current editing on the WG P&P. My current approach is one of minimal deviation from our current rules. I am moving material from both the LMCS P&P and LMSC OM to accomplish this. The task is not yet complete, but please feel to comment.
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
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.