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

Re: [802SEC] Status on WG P&P Editing

Hi Jon,


See comments below...


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


From: Jon Rosdahl [] 
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 10:55 PM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Status on WG P&P Editing


Hi Mat, 

  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.


Mat: Agreed.


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.


Mat:  My intent is that actions of the Sponsor concerning WG remain in the Sponsor (LMSC) P&P or OM.  Actions of the WG would go in the WG P&P.  I think that is consistent with you thoughts.


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. 


Mat: Okay.  I try and reorganize, or feel free to provide specific test.  Note that I am trying to provide traceability between the various documents so I'd prefer not to mish mosh things too much...


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.


Mat:  The reason why I find it overly constraining is that the participant may not want membership.  They may only wish to observe.  I've seen this before and believe observers should be permitted.  I don't think a participant should be 'required' to try and gain membership they may not want.  As long as they pay their participation fees they should be allowed to participate to the extent permitted. 


WG P&P 7.2.1 Establishment

Change "...75% presence at a meeting..." to "... 75% presence at a session..."



Mat:  Actually I think meeting is the correct term since we give credit for participation at meetings.  The following is not quite right yet, but what would you recommend:  Participation at a meeting is defined as at least 75% presence at the meeting.  Participation at a session is defined as participating in meetings during at least 75% of the meetings slots (designated as required for attendance credit) at that 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".


Mat:  My understanding is that some WG have 'task group' interims rather that 'WG' interims and give credit for such sessions.  So I'd like to maintain the current meeting.  I agree the final meeting should be 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).



Mat:  Jon - the definition of meeting and sessions is taken from Robert's rules and is quite intentional.  I don't have a current version of Roberts available at the moment, but here is a quote from an old version:


63. A Session of an assembly is a meeting which, though it may last for days, is virtually one meeting, as a session of a convention; or even months, as a session of Congress; it terminates by an "adjournment sine die (without day)." The intermediate adjournments from day to day, or the recesses taken during the day, do not destroy the continuity of the meetings, which in reality constitute one session. Any meeting which is not an adjournment of another meeting commences a new session. In the case of a permanent society, whose by-laws provide for regular meetings every week, month, or year, for example, each meeting constitutes a separate session of the society, which session, however, can be prolonged by adjourning to another day.

In this Manual the term Meeting is used to denote an assembling of the members of a deliberative assembly for any length of time, during which there is no separation of the members except for a recess of a few minutes, as the morning meetings, the afternoon meetings, and the evening meetings, of a convention whose session lasts for days. A "meeting" of an assembly is terminated by a temporary adjournment or a recess for a meal, etc.; a "session" of an assembly ends with an adjournment without day, and may consist of many meetings. So an adjournment to meet again at some other time, even the same day, unless it was for only a few minutes, terminates the meeting, but not the session, which latter includes all the adjourned meetings. The next meeting, in this case, would be an "adjourned meeting" of the same session.

7.2.5 Meetings and Participation

    This clause is another example of where the "session" and "meeting" may be confused...


Mat:  I actually like the use of the word meeting here, but note that the section might work well with the work session as well.  Note that the 'meetings' are open if the 'session' is open, and I think stating the openness at the level of the meeting is better.


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.


Mat:  Let's discuss this first.  Some WG don't have P&P or OM and still for subgroups today.  The may not want to have an OM, so perhaps leaving it general is what they would prefer. But I agree that I would prefer to see the process spelled out in an OM.



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".


Mat:  Agree.  But note that I plan to add other actions here and some will be 2/3 and some ¾.  For role call votes I think there is yet another level of approval.  Not sure what to do with that yet...  I don't see the issue with session and meeting you describe here.


 10. Meetings

    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.....


Mat:  Agreed, but I hadn't gotten to this section yet.  It will be clearer for the next round.


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.


Mat:  Thanks! All comments and participation are welcome!





	----- 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. 
	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.