Re: [802SEC] defining when an ECSG goes out of business
All-
I suggest that the easiest way is to just put a statement in the Chair's Guidelines
that says that unless the motion explicitly says otherwise, it is always assumed that motions relating to a Study Group are done on the basis of the underlying assumption that the scope of the Study Group is limited to the generation of a single PAR package.
(Note: I believe that a SG could still produce multiple PAR packages under this convention as long as they popped out of the group together.)
Best regards,
Geoff Thompson
> On Nov 3, 2015, at 1:35 PMPST, Paul Nikolich <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET> wrote:
>
> Changing the subject line of this thread to be in line with what is being discussed.
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "James P. K. Gilb" <gilb@ieee.org>
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Sent: 11/3/2015 3:18:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Oct 06 Teleconference Minutes Posted
>> All
>>
>> I concur with Roger that in this case it is clear that the ECSG went out of business with PAR approval.
>>
>> Clarifying the rules in the P&P requires AudCom approval, which would then trigger a review of the WG P&P. Both documents would need to follow the new baselines that are now in the process of approval, leading to all sorts of changes.
>>
>> We can discuss this in January. There is likely at least a couple of methods we could use to clarify the rules without a P&P update.
>>
>> James Gilb
>>
>> On 11/02/2015 01:10 PM, Roger Marks wrote:
>>> Ben,
>>>
>>> I suggested that the rules are ambiguous, and I still think they are,
>>> especially when the EC motion to create or renew the SG isn't explicit
>>> about the charter.
>>>
>>> In the case of the Privacy Recommendation Study Group, it seems that
>>> scope of the SG was such that it was completed with the approval of its
>>> PAR, so I agree it went out of business with the PAR approval.
>>>
>>> Roger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Benjamin A. Rolfe wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I got a bit lost in the thread: Did we answer the original question as
>>>> to the status of the Security ECSG?
>>>> If I read the thread correctly, that group was chartered with a
>>>> single, well defined task to study and produced 1 PAR which has been
>>>> approved.
>>>> The answer given by Jamesi s that the ECSG is now disbanded and no
>>>> further EC action is required.
>>>> Is that correct?
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Ben
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/31/2015 12:29 PM, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>>>>> Colleagues-
>>>>>
>>>>> To David's argument I would add that
>>>>> there is no reason why multiple Study Groups couldn't:
>>>>> - Meet together
>>>>> - Have the same Chairman/Officers
>>>>> although I believe that they would have to produce separate sets of
>>>>> minutes or at least produce minutes that were separable by Study Group.
>>>>> But keeping to the principle of one Study Group = one PAR package
>>>>> seems like a good rule.
>>>>> That makes administration of the work from the EC level simpler.
>>>>> (If it happened to be multiple instances of of an ECSG we have
>>>>> already addressed the issue of one person on the EC = one vote on the
>>>>> EC.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Geoff Thompson
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 30, 2015, at 3:05 PMPDT, Law, David<dlaw@HPE.COM> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have to agree with Geoff that our rules don't seem to have been
>>>>>> developed based on a Study Group producing more than one PAR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The text in subclause 5.4 of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards
>>>>>> Committee (LMSC) Policies and Procedures that states that 'The Study
>>>>>> Group shall have a defined task with specific output and a specific
>>>>>> time frame established within which it is allowed to study the
>>>>>> subject' and that 'After the Study Group recommendations have been
>>>>>> accepted by the parent body, the Study Group will be disbanded no
>>>>>> later than the end of the next plenary session.'. This would seem to
>>>>>> allow more than one PAR from a single Study Group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except, as already observed, the very same subclause also contains
>>>>>> the statement that 'A Study Group is disbanded upon approval of the
>>>>>> PAR by the IEEE-SA Standards Board.' which appears to me rather
>>>>>> definitive, and also I note the use of the singular here and in two
>>>>>> sentences before which states 'A study group is expected to submit a
>>>>>> PAR to the EC for consideration by the 2nd plenary session after its
>>>>>> initiation.'. I will also note that the IEEE-SA Study Group
>>>>>> guidelines are written in singular terms with respect to the
>>>>>> PAR<https://standards.ieee.org/develop/corpchan/studygrp.pdf>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on these apparently conflicting statements I've personally
>>>>>> advised that requesting a single Study Group to generate two PARs
>>>>>> may not the best approach, and to request two Study Group instead.
>>>>>> And just the sheer fact that we're having this discussion on the
>>>>>> reflector IMHO illustrates the rules are not entirely clear on this
>>>>>> point, and that clarification may be required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that were to happen I do have a few thoughts. The first is how
>>>>>> many PARs is it acceptable for a Study Group to ask to be chartered
>>>>>> for, to take this to an extreme a Working Group could have a single
>>>>>> perpetual Study Group that produces all its PARs. I don't think such
>>>>>> a Study Group would get approved, but what is the limit. The second
>>>>>> is does the number of PARs a Study Group is going to generate have
>>>>>> to be part of the chartering motion or, for example, is it
>>>>>> acceptable to charter a Study Group that is expecting to generate
>>>>>> just one PAR, but then once work is underway have the Study Group
>>>>>> come back and ask to be chartered to do two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure that others will have other questions, I'd therefore like
>>>>>> to suggest that we add this as an item for the January EC workshop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>>>>>> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
>>>>>> Sent: 29 October 2015 12:44
>>>>>> To:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Oct 06 Teleconference Minutes Posted
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RE:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems that a Study Group could develop two PARs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I believe that our rules were not developed with that in mind.
>>>>>> If/when we have that as a case then the motion should specifically
>>>>>> address that issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the case under question, I do not believe it is the case that the
>>>>>> ECSG was chartered to develop more than one PAR, even though the
>>>>>> subject area may well warrant more than one project. Therefore, I
>>>>>> don't believe that the majority of those voting on the motion were
>>>>>> thinking in terms of this particular SG having more than one PAR
>>>>>> under its development during its life as an ECSG. A major part of
>>>>>> the ECSG task was to determine which WG (new or existing) would be
>>>>>> home to its work. I don't believe that there was ever an intention
>>>>>> to "place" a project in an existing WG yet continue as an ECSG.
>>>>>> Although that would be possible, it is unprecedented in 802 and
>>>>>> would, in my opinion, require explicit arrangement ahead of time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, it is quite the usual to have a contingent
>>>>>> (explicit or implicit) motion to continue the SG (EC or WG) should a
>>>>>> NESCOM bound PAR not be approved.
>>>>>> In fact, this is so much the usual that we have become sloppy with
>>>>>> the wording of such motions to the extent we leave out the
>>>>>> appropriate contingency clause in the wording.
>>>>>> I believe that is the case here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once the PAR is approved as an 802.1 Project the activity is to move
>>>>>> in its entirety into 802.1 and the ECSG ceases to exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, it is my belief that once the EC decided to assign the project
>>>>>> to 802.1, the life of the ECSG should have been terminated (as of
>>>>>> the end of that EC meeting) and 802.1 would take over.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There may some ambiguity in the P&P but I believe that it was more
>>>>>> that the wording of the motion was less wonderful than it should
>>>>>> have been.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geoff
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 28, 2015, at 11:37 AMPDT, Roger Marks<r.b.marks@ieee.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems that a Study Group could develop two PARs. If it's to be
>>>>>> disbanded upon approval of "the PAR", one could ask "Which PAR: the
>>>>>> first or the second?" It's not unreasonable to presume the second one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More generally, 5.4 says "after the Study Group recommendations have
>>>>>> been accepted by the parent body, the Study Group will be disbanded
>>>>>> no later than the end of the next plenary session." So if the Study
>>>>>> Group has recommendations (other than the first or only PAR) that
>>>>>> are still awaiting acceptance by the parent body, then this says
>>>>>> it's not supposed to be disbanded between plenaries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I still think there is at least a little ambiguity in the P&P. IMHO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James P. K. Gilb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Sorry about that, I responded to Roger only the first time).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does say that earlier in the same subclause. Note that it is
>>>>>> only specific about its charter and does not say that it cannot be
>>>>>> dissolved earlier. For example, the EC could vote to dissolve it
>>>>>> prior to the next plenary session. Or, in this case, the rules
>>>>>> state that it is dissolved upon approval of the PAR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, a motion from the EC can't override the rules in the P&P,
>>>>>> which state it dissolves with approval of the PAR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The EC is supposed to assign the PAR to a group, hence upon approval
>>>>>> of the PAR, that group has the responsibility for that topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see any ambiguity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James Gilb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/27/2015 01:54 PM, Roger Marks wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a strong point. On the other hand, 5.4 says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A Study Group shall report its recommendations, shall have a limited
>>>>>> lifetime, and is chartered plenary session-to-plenary session."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and EC Motion #40 (2015-07-17) says:
>>>>>> "To approve the extension of the IEEE 802 EC Privacy Recommendation
>>>>>> Study Group until the end of the November 2015 meeting."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so I think there is at least a little ambiguity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James P. K. Gilb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had an action item:
>>>>>> 1) Gilb to determine when an 802 ECSG is disbanded per the 802
>>>>>> policies and procedures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on the approved IEEE 802 LMSC Policies and Procedures:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) The Privacy ECSG was disbanded upon approval of the PAR by the
>>>>>> IEEE-SA standards board.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) With the disbanding of the ECSG, Juan Carlos is no longer a member
>>>>>> of the EC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rationale:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In our approved P&P, Clause 5.4, page 14, first paragraph: Two types
>>>>>> of Study Groups, Working Group Study Groups (WGSGs) and Executive
>>>>>> Committee Study Groups (ECSGs) are listed. Hence, when the term
>>>>>> "Study Group" is used the text without a modifier, it means either
>>>>>> type of group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In Clause 5.4, final paragraph, it says "After the Study Group
>>>>>> recommendations have been accepted by the parent body, the Study Group
>>>>>> will be disbanded no later than the end of the next plenary session. A
>>>>>> Study Group is disbanded upon approval of the PAR by the IEEE-SA
>>>>>> Standards Board."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James Gilb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/26/2015 01:09 PM, John D'Ambrosia wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The minutes from the Oct 06 EC Teleconference have been posted.
>>>>>> Please see
>>>>>> http://ieee802.org/minutes/Conference-calls/2015-10-06-call-minutes-v0.pdf.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My thanks to Mr. Gilb for filling in for me during a computer moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John D'Ambrosia
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Recording Secretary, IEEE 802 LMSC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> ----------
>> 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.