[802SEC] Notes on P&P Review meeting
The P&P review meeting was held from 6 PM to about 9:30 PM.
No attendance was taken, but the meeting was open to all and different
folks drifted in and out (including several non-EC members).
The focus for the whole meeting was on the WG P&P.
A lot of discussion was held but the main topic points were:
The role of TAGs in IEEE 802
Approach to WG voting rules
A number of useful strawpolls were held including:
A) Prefer that a TAG is a standing committee of the Sponsor (Cannot be
assigned an Approved PAR)
B) Prefer TAG is a type of WG restricted from writing full standards
Mat should add a note about a TAG being a special form of a Standing
Committee following WG rules, and adjust text in rules changes based on
Regarding WG voting rules do you prefer:
A) Rewriting Audcom rules to reflect what LMSC does (7 EC voters said
B) Keeping AudCom rules and file a formal objection to AudCom on their
rules / leave stuff in Ops Manual (0 EC voters said yes)
C) None of the Above (3 EC voters said yes + 2 non-voting yes)
Mat should rewrite WG voting rules to reflect current LMSC voting
practices in an AudCom format
Should term section on letter ballots, 'actions requiring a letter
Concern was expressed that the current rules unintentionally over
emphasize use of RRoO. This led to the following.
In the current LMSC OM, should we:
Strike Line reading "Approval thresholds on Non-technical votes are as
defined in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (latest edition)" and
strike "Majority" in 220.127.116.11 c.
For: 10 / Against: 0
Mat will adjust rules in WG P&P accordingly.
Concern was expressed on what was the right approval level to make
modifications to WG procedures.
Changing the WG OM should require a 75% vote - Agree 7, Object 0
Changing the WG OM should require a 66% vote - Agree 4, Object 2
Changing the WG OM should require a 50% vote - Agree 0, Object 11
A strong consensus did not exist on this question initially which
prompted the question of who would object to these statements (blocking
vote). Based on the result, a 75% threshold seemed most appropriate.
Mat will change the WG P&P text accordingly.
It was noted that this does not apply to the LMSC WG P&P itself, which
is a sponsor document. The threshold for changing that will be 66% as
with other documents. Mat will capture this in the OM.
The issue of 'reverting back' to older approaches for votes in WG was
discussed, particularly the idea that all matters brought to the EC
should require a 75% vote. This resulted in the following:
Should all mandated WG votes by sponsor procedures be 75% approval
3 Approve / 10 Disapprove
Based on this, no additional changes were required for the WG P&P
After this, there was an open floor for any rules related issues.
Bob Grow noted that he will provide edits for the Member Roster and
The meeting concluded about 9:30.
Please let me know if you have any additional question.
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.