Re: [802SEC] Teleconference on WG P&P Revision for Friday 11/13 @ 12 noon Eastern Time
Mat:
In my experience, some projects (e.g., maintenance) have minimal participation and consequent difficulty in meeting the current response rate. There is also a problem cause by our WG membership rules that make it much easier to gain membership than to lose it. Consequently, when a major project (e.g., higher speed of operation) completes, many members stop participating, but it takes a year to remove them from the voting list.
A change to the response threshold is not practical without a change to our membership rules.
WG ballot groups were suggested at the IEEE-SA level years ago as a means to solve a particular "rules" problem that instead was fixed by a special IEEE-SA provision being added to IEEE Bylaws. Tony highlights the burden WG ballot groups would present.
IEEE 802.3 has an abstention threshold in its rules for WG ballots (and the only thing balloted is drafts). I'll admit to ambivalence about that rule. While the abstention threshold is intended to engage participants in the broader WG activities (and does that for some), I find it has unexpected consequences -- what I have heard called the Approve (lack of time) or Approve (lack of expertise) ballot. All that one formally sees is the Approve, but many individuals that wish to maintain membership and do not want to hold up the specific project that they are not involved in cast an Approve vote simply to not be cause for the ballot to fail.
Reflecting the expertise issue Tony mentions, I've seen 802.3 participants change from Disapprove to Abstain Lack of Expertise in recirculation because the few things they felt competent to comment on were fixed, but the bulk of the amendment was outside their field of expertise.
For example, what is the ratio of security experts to the number of WG members? So, with an abstention threshold, a project focused on an element of security has to get a large number of Approve (lack of expertise, but I trust the experts) votes for the project to complete.
I'm willing to leave an abstention threshold as a WG specific policy rather than imposing the rule on all WGs.
--Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 1:23 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Teleconference on WG P&P Revision for Friday 11/13 @ 12 noon Eastern Time
Mat -
As Geoff has pointed out, the lack of an abstention requirement in our rules is
deliberate, and in the case of 802.1, absolutely necessary in order for us to continue to
conduct business. As I have to point ad nauseam at EC meetings, 802.1 generally has a high
abstention rate on WG ballots because of the diversity of the subject matter that we
tackle; I would therefore consider any attempt to impose an abstention requirement as
hostile to 802.1's continued operation, unless it was accompanied by a change to our rules
such that WG members get to enrol in a voting pool for particular projects, much as we
have to for Sponsor ballots.
However, given the additional bureaucracy that such a change would necessarily involve, I
believe that it would only be practical to go down that route if we had the on-line tools
to allow us to administer balloting groups, run electronic ballots, etc., which are not
available right now.
Regards,
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: 09 November 2009 18:39
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Teleconference on WG P&P Revision for Friday 11/13 @ 12 noon Eastern
Time
Mat-
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.)
Geoff
On 11/9/09 4:19 AM, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
> All,
>
> 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 5.4.3.1):
>
> 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
>
> Regards,
>
>
> 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
> email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com<mailto:matthew.sherman@baesystems.com>
>
> ----------
> 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.
----------
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.