[802SEC] Minutes of IEEE 802 WG P&P teleconference on 8/20/2009
A short teleconference was held on development of the IEEE 802 WG P&P. In attendance were:
Unfortunately the call in info was not posted in a timely fashion. A set if iCalandar appointments with call-in info was sent out to help avoid this situation for future meetings.
Minutes (please inform email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> if you see errors or have concerns with these minutes):
The call started at about 12 PM EDT.
It was noted that the only comments received to date were on the reflector from Buzz Rigsbee. Buzz's comments are included below for reference.
It was noted that all the WG P&P ballot documents are now posted on the EC website at:
It was noted that AudCom has started to consider our concerns on the existing baseline WG P&P.
Thanks to Bob Grow for spearheading having our concerns heard.
A snipet from a recent e-mail from AudCom on the status of addressing those concerns is included at the end of this e-mail.
A snipet with the concerns that Bob Grow express to AudCom is also included.
Mat noted that the EC documents server appears to be up and running and that he plans to post future documents relating to the P&P updates at that server.
There was no other business to discuss so the call was adjourned at about 12:40 PM EDT.
The next call is scheduled for September 18, 2009 at 12 Noon EDT.
Snipet with comments from Buzz Rigsbee:
Hey Mat, Don't forget to modify the language that requires an IEEE-802
opening plenary meeting. My suggestion would be to change it from "shall"
to "may" so that we have the option of doing it but it eliminates the requirement of doing it. Thus far we are NOT planning to do one for Atlanta. It saves us a bunch of money on AV set-ups and the WGs can start
their meetings sooner should they so choose. :-)
Snipet from Audcom Email correspondence on Baseline WG P&P
To: Matthew Sherman
From: R.C. Petersen [email@example.com]
Sent: Thu 8/20/2009 11:54 AM
Subject: RE: Concerns with WG P&P
Yesterday we went through each of the concerns listed in Bob's e-mail and decided on how each should be addressed. Most require editorial changes, some will be addressed in a WG P&P FAQ, and couple require substantive changes. As soon as AudCom agrees on what we think we agreed on yesterday on how to proceed, I'll give you a call and we can discuss.
Snipet containing concerns expressed by Bob Grow to AudCom.
To: R.C. Petersen
From: Grow, Bob [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Mon 7/27/2009 2:55 PM
Subject: Concerns with WG P&P
I've now been involved in attempting to use the WG Baseline P&P for both P2030, and in 802's attempt to create a common WG P&P for all of its WG. I find some things in the baseline that I'm personally embarrassed that I didn't advocate being changed prior to SASB approval, and some others after real world attempted application seem unnecessary and sometimes strange restrictions on a WG doing business. I'm happy to describe this in September if you want to put it on the agenda (obviously mostly focusing on the substantive problems rather than all my detailed comments (unless AudCom wants to review all of them.
Following are comments referenced to subsections in the baseline. While these are my personal comments, I don't recall any substantive items that were not also found to be problematic by others working on using the baseline. I also haven't captured all of the complaint of all I've worked with in attempting to create WG P&P in the two cases.
The baseline procedures are inconsistent in use of capitalization in headings. For consistency with standards style, sentence capitalization is preferred over title capitalization.
No instruction on the Title of the WG's P&P. I've seen some suggest that it needs a cover sheet with WG Chair contact information included, that the IEEE copyright should be added to the cover sheet (and footer as with standards). Others simply will replace the title with "Operating Procedures for <name of WG>. I prefer the latter, but instruction might help. I see no reason to copyright, and the baseline properly gives no encouragement to do so.
Introductory text following the Title - I assume all of this can be deleted, but it isn't red text like other customization instructions. The note at the end does not describe that red text is instruction to be deleted from approved procedures.
General - There is confusion on what is meant by procedure. For example, is Sponsor's procedures a synonym for Sponsor P&P, or would it include a Sponsor Operations Manual. Procedure is sometimes used to refer to the WG P&P (i.e., these procedures). Need to tighten up and be precise.
Hierarchy, 3. - Instructions conflict with what has to be done to make the list right. There are items on the list that do not apply to SCCs (e.g., no society, though a liberal interpretation has one deleting the society lines within the instruction). The parent of SCCs is the SASB, not a society with a Technical Committee. For a real rat's nest, what is one to do when the PAR has joint sponsorship? What if the Sponsor has more procedures than the Sponsor P&P (for example, AudCom encouraged/forced LMSC to move part of its procedures into a Sponsor Operating Manual, shouldn't that be added to the list). The reference to Robert's Rules is not as the RROR people recommended it be cited (I think we got it right on Sponsor baseline).
Member or participant - This is one that really embarrasses me that I didn't catch before SASB approval. Especially since I've been engaged at the BOG on defining participants and the participant database we added to the rules last year. We got the difference between members and participants right on Sponsor baseline after significant discussion, but it is back to being significantly wrong on the WG P&P.
Membership has nothing to do with indemnification (1st paragraph of clause 8), participants are indemnified independent of member status. There are other places where member is used instead of participant. Member includes voting rights, and is a subset of participants. Minutes should include participants with employer and affiliation. The roster requirements is for cumulative participants since last roster submission. A member list is appropriate, but it is a subset of participants and certainly a subset of participant data.
I missed the bad text in 7.1 also at SASB review. There isn't a requirement that participants become members and this can read that way. How I hope it is interpreted and should be rewritten to be clear is that there are participants and members and you become a member by ..., not that participants shall become members.
7.3, third paragraph - missing two votes? This isn't clear about meeting votes or letter ballots. Though modifiable, if submitted as is, one can call for roll call votes in a meeting to purge the membership. We don't want to enable that kind of game playing. Membership needs to be stable at a meeting.
Voting - This raised a lot of problem in 802, less for 2030. The description of the simple majority and super majority items actually makes it impossible to follow the super majority rules contained in Roberts Rules. (For example, calling the question).
In 9.1,a), The text has confused some. The "i.e." specification of the denominator isn't generally the same as votes cast which to most includes abstains.
In 9.1b), we create a very strange ambiguity. One tool being developed by IEEE-SA is an electronic voting tool (e-poll) that could be used in large group meetings. Which rules govern when an electronic vote is taken in a meeting? This item should be votes between meetings, though clarity is required to make consistent with missed votes and membership requirement. Ballot or letter ballot (even though an archaic term for paper and snail mail) can distinguish from meeting votes. If this is referring to 9.4 type votes, it should reference that section.
9.4, People thought we got beyond this requirement, yet it has popped up again. This means that a letter ballot to forward a draft to Sponsor ballot can't be based on the Sponsor ballot process. This was a big problem in 802, where WG have many projects and very different skill sets. Few chip designers are experts in encryption. Protocol or management experts may not be expert in fiber optics or MIMO radio's for example. The power folk in 2030 are just waking up to this diversity of skill set that they are now engaged with.
10, last paragraph. This is inconsistent with the SASB operations manual, where participants are requested to disclose both employer and affiliation (typically but not always the same). Attendance credit isn't granted when one fails to respond to that requirement. Should this simply be replaced with a reference to the SASB operations manual?
13, this catches way too much stuff. Do we really want the secretary recording every query about a participants membership status, how do I get involved, how do I get access to the password protected area of the web site, etc. This is appropriate for formal communication, but not for informal questions regularly directed to a Chair.
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.