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

Re: [802SEC] Teleconference on WG P&P Revision for Friday 11/13 @ 12 noon Eastern Time


I have no problem with revisiting the criteria for a WG Ballot.
My feeling is that it is likely to remain as is.
When we made the change it was quite deliberate as there are often many projects in a WG, whereas folks self-select themselves into a particular Sponsor Ballot Group.

On the other hand, one of the purposes of WG Ballot is to "train" the group for its participation in Sponsor Ballot. To that end, we may wish to consider aligning the details of the 802 WG Ballot process to more closely match Sponsor Ballot process. (My personal feeling runs the other way. I have long felt that our ballot process tends to be a better tool for improving drafts than the IEEE process and that the better solution is for them to move towards us. They have moved considerably over the years, but they still have a way to go.)


On 11/9/09 4:19 AM, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:

This is just a reminder that we will have a teleconference to discuss status on the WG P&P revision this Friday @ 12 Noon ET.  This will of course be followed Sunday by our usual P&P Review meeting.

If you have any issues concerning the WG P&P revision please bring them (and your proposed resolutions) forward by Friday.  If there is any redrafting of the revisions required, I'd like to have them done by Sunday.

Note that I will be proposing the following change on Friday:

To address the recent concern that WG Chairs should bring vote counts for any matters they bring forward for consideration by the EC on behalf of their WG I suggest the following be added to Clause 3.1.2 of the LMSC OM revision:

"Votes brought to the EC on behalf of a WG or TAG shall include vote counts for the approval votes to bring the matter forward to the EC."

In addition, I have a concern about approval of WG Ballots to forward Drafts to Sponsor ballot. I feel the current rules are ambiguous, and I am concerned that they are substantially different than for Sponsor ballot.  Currently the Draft WG P&P (9.6) has:

"Approval to forward a draft standard to the Sponsor shall require approval by a WG Letter Electronic Ballot.  Abstains shall require a reason be given, and Do Not Approve votes shall require comments on changes required to modify the vote to Approve.  For a letter ballot on a draft standard to be valid a majority of all the voting members of the Committee must have responded Approve, Do Not Approve, or Abstain ."

The Process for Sponsor Ballot is as follows (SA SB OM

For a standards ballot to be effective, at least 75% of the ballots shall be returned. In the event that a 75%
return from the balloting group cannot be obtained, the balloting process is considered to have failed.
Further disposition of the document shall be the responsibility of the Sponsor. A minimum of 75% of those
voting affirmative or negative with comment must approve the draft in order to submit the ballot result to
the IEEE-SA Standards Board. In the event that 30% or more of the returned ballots are abstentions, the
ballot shall be considered invalid.

Note that in the WG rules, there is no abstention requirement, and the return requirement is lower....  I'm not saying this is wrong, but I felt we should revisit it to make sure this is what we intend.

The call in info is the same as previously:

                 12 Noon Eastern Time:
                 Toll Free Dial In Number:  (866)205-4008
Int'l Access/Caller Paid Dial In Number:  (801)886-8167
ACCESS CODE:  6336344


Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
First Vice Chair, IEEE 802
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.