VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 32 POSTED ON: 7/5/2011
P&P Revision Ballot Response Form Ballot Title: Creation of Operation Manual Balloter: Pat Thaler (Please provide name) Vote: (Approve, Disapprove, Abstain, or Nonvotin Comment Instructions: Do not edit the comment # or Commenter fields. The Clause / Subclause feild Line Number are mandatory. Please stick to the ballot scope. If a comment is not germane to the ballot new revision ballot for the issue of that comment. General remedies such as 'please add a section on my text is not specific enough' are discouraged. Rather provide specific remedy such as 'Replace "This text wish to add additional rationale to help persuade others please do this in the rationale column. Do not in and line # in a single comment. Rather reference the page # / line # where the change begins. If multiple changed, please provide separate comments for each area. While this does add more work for the comm the processing of comments. If you really need more than 200 comments, please submit additional form you cooperation. MANDATORY OPTIONAL MANDATORY Document Clause or Comment # Commenter (PP or OM) Subclause Page # Line # 1 Pat Thaler PP 1 1 8 2 Pat Thaler PP 2 2 33 3 Pat Thaler PP 3.1 3 10 4 Pat Thaler PP 5 Pat Thaler PP 3.1 3 27 6 Pat Thaler PP 3.2 3 34 7 Pat Thaler PP 3.1 3 18 8 Pat Thaler PP 3.4.1 4 17 9 Pat Thaler PP 1 1 12 10 Pat Thaler PP 3.4.1 4 28 11 Pat Thaler PP 3.4.2 4 40 12 Pat Thaler PP 3.4.3 5 9 13 Pat Thaler PP 3.4.3 5 16 14 Pat Thaler PP 3.4.4 5 32 15 Pat Thaler PP 3.4.5 5 43 16 Pat Thaler PP 4.2 7 10 17 Pat Thaler PP 5.1 7 30 18 Pat Thaler PP 4 6 7 19 Pat Thaler PP 5.1.3 8 17 20 Pat Thaler PP 5.1.2 8 6 21 Pat Thaler OM 18.104.22.168 8 9 22 Pat Thaler PP 5.4 10 25 23 Pat Thaler PP 5.3 9 40 24 Pat Thaler PP 5.4.1 19 32 25 Pat Thaler PP 6 10 36 26 Pat Thaler PP 6 10 34 27 Pat Thaler PP 6.1 11 10 28 Pat Thaler PP 7 11 40 29 Pat Thaler PP 7 12 5 30 Pat Thaler PP 7 11 34 31 Pat Thaler PP 9.2 13 9 32 Pat Thaler PP 9.3 13 20 33 Pat Thaler PP 9.3.1 13 25 34 Pat Thaler OM 1.1 1 34 35 Pat Thaler OM 1.1 1 38 36 Pat Thaler PP 1 2 2 37 Pat Thaler OM 2 2 12 38 Pat Thaler OM 3.1 4 5 39 Pat Thaler OM 3.1.1 4 12 40 Pat Thaler OM 3.1.2 4 29 41 Pat Thaler OM 22.214.171.124 5 2 42 Pat Thaler OM 126.96.36.199 6 3 43 Pat Thaler OM 188.8.131.52 6 13 44 Pat Thaler OM 184.108.40.206 5 22 45 Pat Thaler OM 3.2.1 7 41 46 Pat Thaler OM 220.127.116.11 10 4 47 Pat Thaler OM 3.2.3 10 32 48 Pat Thaler OM 18.104.22.168.1 11 6 49 Pat Thaler OM 22.214.171.124.2 11 13 50 Pat Thaler OM 126.96.36.199.3 12 6 51 Pat Thaler OM 188.8.131.52 13 3 52 Pat Thaler OM 184.108.40.206 12 35 53 Pat Thaler OM 220.127.116.11 14 3 54 Pat Thaler OM 18.104.22.168 14 7 55 Pat Thaler OM 22.214.171.124 15 18 56 Pat Thaler OM 3.3.1 17 20 57 Pat Thaler OM 3.3.1 17 23 58 Pat Thaler OM 4.1.1 18 19 59 Pat Thaler OM 4.2.1 19 21 60 Pat Thaler OM 4.2.3 20 35 61 Pat Thaler OM 4.2.3 21 15 62 Pat Thaler OM 4.2.3 21 9 63 Pat Thaler OM 5 22 23 64 Pat Thaler OM 8.1.2 24 3 65 Pat Thaler OM 8.1.2 24 1 66 Pat Thaler OM 11.3 27 29 67 Pat Thaler OM 11.4 28 3 68 Pat Thaler 69 Pat Thaler 70 Pat Thaler 71 Pat Thaler 72 Pat Thaler 73 Pat Thaler 74 Pat Thaler 75 Pat Thaler 76 Pat Thaler 77 Pat Thaler 78 Pat Thaler 79 Pat Thaler 80 Pat Thaler 81 Pat Thaler 82 Pat Thaler 83 Pat Thaler 84 Pat Thaler 85 Pat Thaler 86 Pat Thaler 87 Pat Thaler 88 Pat Thaler 89 Pat Thaler 90 Pat Thaler 91 Pat Thaler 92 Pat Thaler 93 Pat Thaler 94 Pat Thaler 95 Pat Thaler 96 Pat Thaler 97 Pat Thaler 98 Pat Thaler 99 Pat Thaler 100 Pat Thaler 101 Pat Thaler 102 Pat Thaler 103 Pat Thaler 104 Pat Thaler 105 Pat Thaler 106 Pat Thaler 107 Pat Thaler 108 Pat Thaler 109 Pat Thaler 110 Pat Thaler 111 Pat Thaler 112 Pat Thaler 113 Pat Thaler 114 Pat Thaler 115 Pat Thaler 116 Pat Thaler 117 Pat Thaler 118 Pat Thaler 119 Pat Thaler 120 Pat Thaler 121 Pat Thaler 122 Pat Thaler 123 Pat Thaler 124 Pat Thaler 125 Pat Thaler 126 Pat Thaler 127 Pat Thaler 128 Pat Thaler 129 Pat Thaler 130 Pat Thaler 131 Pat Thaler 132 Pat Thaler 133 Pat Thaler 134 Pat Thaler 135 Pat Thaler 136 Pat Thaler 137 Pat Thaler 138 Pat Thaler 139 Pat Thaler 140 Pat Thaler 141 Pat Thaler 142 Pat Thaler 143 Pat Thaler 144 Pat Thaler 145 Pat Thaler 146 Pat Thaler 147 Pat Thaler 148 Pat Thaler 149 Pat Thaler 150 Pat Thaler 151 Pat Thaler 152 Pat Thaler 153 Pat Thaler 154 Pat Thaler 155 Pat Thaler 156 Pat Thaler 157 Pat Thaler 158 Pat Thaler 159 Pat Thaler 160 Pat Thaler 161 Pat Thaler 162 Pat Thaler 163 Pat Thaler 164 Pat Thaler 165 Pat Thaler 166 Pat Thaler 167 Pat Thaler 168 Pat Thaler 169 Pat Thaler 170 Pat Thaler 171 Pat Thaler 172 Pat Thaler 173 Pat Thaler 174 Pat Thaler 175 Pat Thaler 176 Pat Thaler 177 Pat Thaler 178 Pat Thaler 179 Pat Thaler 180 Pat Thaler 181 Pat Thaler 182 Pat Thaler 183 Pat Thaler 184 Pat Thaler 185 Pat Thaler 186 Pat Thaler 187 Pat Thaler 188 Pat Thaler 189 Pat Thaler 190 Pat Thaler 191 Pat Thaler 192 Pat Thaler 193 Pat Thaler 194 Pat Thaler 195 Pat Thaler 196 Pat Thaler 197 Pat Thaler 198 Pat Thaler 199 Pat Thaler 200 Pat Thaler se provide name) rove, Disapprove, Abstain, or Nonvoting) r fields. The Clause / Subclause feild is optional. The Page # / comment is not germane to the ballot at hand, please initiate a s such as 'please add a section on my personal beef' or 'this ic remedy such as 'Replace "This text" with "That text" '. If you his in the rationale column. Do not include multiple page # # where the change begins. If multiple disjoint areas are being his does add more work for the commenter it also streamlines mments, please submit additional forms. Thanks in advance for Comment Is this text we can change - some of the wording here is really odd. I can't tell what is meant by "essential asset in determining". Isn't adherence to the rules a requirement to qualify for coverage by the indemnification policy. This is a very stilted way of saying that. And on line 22, why "However" - 'however implies that what follows is somewhat in contradiction to what proceeded the however, but here it doesn't. "Therefore" would be more appropriate. i) what does this mean - how do we determine 'appropriate parties" I'm okay with this but I thought that the general preference for those filling vacancies was for the transition from "acting" to "voting" to occur immediately on confirmation of the individual. That is how we have done it recently. Have term limits been removed? Why "must be confirmed" for vice chairs and "are… confirmed for the other officers? Doesn't cover the case where the office of chair becomes vacant as in that case there is no Sponsor Chair to make the appointment. So if you die or are in a coma, you maintain your appointment? The list on line 34 is more complete. In 802, that has been delegated to the working groups - there is no one person or group developing interpretations for all approved standards - each working group generates its interpretations The grammar here is ambiguous - does this mean that the LMSC and its EC are both referred to as "sponsor" or is it only the EC? The document is inconsistant. 3 says that the officers of the EC are the officers of the sponsor, which seems like a tautology given that 1 says sponsor = EC (or maybe sponsor = EC or LMSC depending on how the sentence is parsed). Clause 4 uses sponsor as the LMSC. l and r seems somewhat redundant. e and q are exact duplicates. Isn't p part of entertaining a motion (e and q)? Also what is "the group" - presumably LMSC so why not say that. It also isn't clear to me that they are wholely correct - a lot of the prioritization of objectives and work is done in the WGs. Is there something else that should be here instead such as a duty to supervise the work of the WGs, TAGs and ECSGs? So the second vice chair doesn't have any responsibilities and the first vice chair only has ones that arise when the chair is absent? What meetings does the recording secretary schedule? The plenary dates are set when the venues are picked and the EC meetings are scheduled within the plenary meetings according to our rules. Also, should this list say something about the website? Which sponsor documentation? I thought that the Working Group chairs prepare and submit the PARs and RevCom submittal packages. Does the treasurer also have a responsibility to supervise the financial operations of the WG treasuries and their bank accounts? What is a CSP? "the obligations of active participation as defined in 11 Clause 4.1"? The only clearly defined obligation in 4.1 is to submit a letter. And p 6. l 28 implies that there is an obligation to not have "a pattern of not attending meetings" which is pretty vague. Especially since we have EC meetings and less formal meetings like the rules meeting and other chair's meetings during the plenary. ", forwarded by the Sponsor." seems unnecessary - I'm pretty sure that that is the only way for a PAR to get to the SASB, and, if there was a way for the SASB to approve a PAR that we didn't forward, the approval would still create a WG. To maintain WG/TAG representation when a WG chair is unable to attend a session, the WG vice chair should be able to vote when the chair is absent. For continuity of the EC during a session and to keep this from being abused, such a substitution should only be allowed when done for a whole session. This says nothing about when deactivation is appropriate. Is it when a WG has no unfinished PARs and no study groups? Shouldn't the P&P have a section on the duties of the WG chair? I realize that you have this in the OM but I thought that a ProCom on the review of our previous P&P objected to the lack of such a section. Since they only will review the P&P, WG chair responsibilities should probably be included here to keep them happy. Item a on the PP 3.4.1 list would also be appropriate here. Also, it isn't clear why this is divided into two lists. Do we have a mechanism for sending out such notice? This isn't in our existing rules and I don't ever recall getting a notice of a ballot resolution meeting through MyBallot. The fundamental responsibility of an SG chair is different from that of a WG chair. The SG Chair is to guide the SG in determining whether a project is justified and, if so, in developing a PAR for the project. The WG Chair is to lead the WG to make progress on their projects. "responsible subgroup"? What is that? Subgroup could be LMSC (which is a subgroup of Computer Society), WG or TAG, or task group/task force. If we mean WG or TAG, then say that. Also, this is possibly in conflict with the sb-om 5.4.1 which says that the Sponsor may add additional classifications where appropriate. This would change the way we operate by allowing the Chair or a non-majority of the EC (5 or more members) to schedule a meeting. It isn't clear what sponsor sessions and meetings are. Is this only intended to cover EC meetings or does it include plenary meetings of 802? Does it include the WG meetings? If 6 only applies to EC meetings, then this isn't an important point, but 10% is too low a bar for quorum. I could live with less than 50% but it should be higher than 10. Again subgroup needs definition. The should not be involved in formation or disbanding of task groups - it should be up to a WG and its Chair to organize WG internal structure. We don't approve a PAR for balloting. Critical items such as approval to forward PARs to NesCom and Drafts to RevCom are missing. what is the impact of this shall? If a WG chair forgot to add an item to the agenda before the meeting, does this mean that the EC can't consider it? This language seems overly broad. So, if my husband asks, "How was the IEEE 802 meeting?" do I need to tell him to ask Paul? This is in contradiction to SASB-OM 5.3.11 which says that the IEEE logo shall be on all publications (assuming that a public statement is a publication - neither is defined). This comment also applies to P&P 8.2.2 page 24 line 38 This change should not be made. Our previous rules did not require Sponsor approval for WG or task group liaison statements. This change will make it difficult to respond to liaison requests at interim meetings. Inconsistant - Elsewhere LAN MAN Standards Committee has no slash PAN and RAN only appear here - they aren't used in the doc. LMSC should be LAN or delete "/MAN Standards Committee" Delete TAG - PP 5.2 says TAGs can't develop Standards. It would be better for the OM and PP to use the same term for the EC. In the PP, the sponsor chair makes appointments and that is consistant with what we have done in the past. Doesn't say what the approval threshold is for items that aren't disciplinary matters. This text is ambiguous. We should have clear rules on whether a VC can participate in place of the chair and whether that includes voting. Also, is this intended to only apply to WGs (i.e. not TAGs)? If TAGs are included they need to be added to the text. I don't understand what this means. Any motion can be tabled if we vote to do so. Who determines whether a vote needs concurrence of a WG? Can any WG chair unilaterally have something tabled by asserting that WG needs to review it to determine concurrence? I doubt that is meant but it is one possible interpretation of the words here. Delete "the end" - there is no reason for the action to take place at a specific time during the next EC meeting and a motion that triggers this provision is likely to be controversial and therefore not something to be left until the end of a meeting. We need to make results of electronic ballots part of our minutes. It is too difficult to keep track of them by searching the reflector archive. This text continues to have the problem we ran into this year - when running for office at the end of the fourth term one would have to consult the calendar to determine what day our meeting fell on 8 years ago to determine whether the term limit applied. Sometimes it would be a week or so over 8 years. Should "all WG" be "all WG and TAG"? Does a TAG member not count in that process? Also, should we add "if doing so is possible under our governing documents"? It is possible that a petition could ask us to do something that is in contradiction to IEEE SASB rules. "concurrence of the EC" - does this mean that there must be a vote of the EC to approve the action or does it just mean informing the EC so the EC has a chance to object? Reduce the quorum because this level is too difficult to achieve when WG membership is in flux. Possibly use PP 6.1 though I would prefer the minimum to be higher than 10%. This subclause is a jumble of rules that apply to all letter ballots and those that apply to letter ballots on drafts. It isn't clear which apply to which. For example, a letter ballot on other matters shouldn't require comments to support a Do Not Approve. Such comments wouldn't be required if the vote was taken at a meeting. I don't see a return percentage or approval percentage for ballots on other matters. Doesn't quite parse. Note also that RROR says one has to have the floor to make the request which is different from what is here. Does this imply that numeric results must always be taken? Should it say "numeric results where applicable" or simply results since we sometimes take a voice vote on routine items. There shouldn't be two sections on WG Chair responsibilities - 126.96.36.199 Also covers this topic. Shouldn't this say LMAC P&P or LMSC OM? Also this seems to be already covered in Clause 1. It is odd to start the discussion of hibernation with a statement about reactivation. Could start off with a statement about why a group is hibernated or how hibernation occurs. "WG Chair" should be "WG Chair and EC Treasurer" since the EC Treasurer needs to make reports for all of IEEE 802's financial activities. This doesn't match our current format for opening plenary meetings. It is also because they don't have formal voting membership (see 3.3.2) We aren't doing a) at plenary sessions any more. non-LMSC entity should be plural too - there might be more than one I found this a bit hard to parse. Also, WG/TAG subgroups are not allowed to host so they shouldn't be included on line 37. It also is strange that some requirements preceed the bulleted list and some are bulleted. There is no item 6 above. I expect the intent was the last bullet item. This information doesn't seem particularly useful and mainly about semantics - there are lots of valid ways for a host to handle things. Sometimes they plan on covering the deficit from a meeting designed to run somewhere between zero-sum and a modest deficit. That seems pretty much the same as not making the contribution until the size of the contribution is know. I've also seen cases where the social was adjusted or a hosted meal was added The heading Vote appears to be extraneous. This seems to be in contradiction to PP 9.3.1 which says subgroup public statements require approval of the sponsor. Also it isn't clear what makes a communication "information only". Communications usually carry only information. Furthermore, how does one determine which members of the EC are "affected"? Why not inform the whole EC. Should clarify whether 8.1.2 or 8.2 applies to ITU. It is both a standards body and an intergovernmental body. Since we changed the format of the opening plenary we haven't been doing this. Now that the PARs are submitted on line, is there still a signature? Remedy Fix if we are allowed. Fix if we are allowed. Make both "must be" or both "are" After "if an office" add "other than the chair". Add if the office of chair becomes vacant, that the 1st vice chair assumes the position of chair. Add "or is unable to serve for another reason". Remove? Or say that the chair is responsible for monitoring that Working Groups respond to interpretation requests. Use "sponsor" for only one thing - either the whole of LMSC or the EC - I'm not sure which is more appropriate. And then consistantly use it for that - this flips back and forth between using EC, sponsor and in a few cases LMSC sponsor. Remove duplications. Add a duty to supervise the operation of the WGs, TAGs and SGs. Add "The responsiblities of the vice chairs are to assist the chair in the responsibilities delegated to them." or something along those lines. Expand the acronym. Perhaps site clause 3.4 for the EC officers and something for the WG chairs. delete. Add: When the Chair of an Active WG or of a TAG is unable to attend all or part of a plenary session, voting membership of the Chair for that session may be delegated to the WG or TAG Vice Chair. OM 188.8.131.52 possibly attempts to say this but since that is a lower precedence document, it can't overturn the voting rules in the PP and it isn't clear whether "acts as the WG chair" includes exercising the chair's vote - probably not since elsewhere it says there is no proxy. Add a section on WG chair using the material now in the OM. The same issue may apply to the rights of WG members. Add the item and make one list. This is a reasonable thing to do, but I don't want to approve the requirement unless we know that MyBallot will support sending such a notice to the balloting group. Replace subgroup with the appropriate term. It should take a vote of the EC to approve a plenary meeting. For dealing with extrodinary matters that can't wait until a plenary, I would be willing to allow the EC Chair to approve holding an EC meeting by teleconference. Also, there should be a meeting notice requirement - at least 30 days for physical meetings. For teleconference meetings, I would like at least 1 week. Clarify 20% Delete PARs from h. Add Approval to PARs or PAR modifications to NesCom and Approval to forward Draft standards to RevCom for approval. Should this be a "should"? Remove this requirement. remove the slash between LAN and MAN. Also appears in PP in Clause 1, page 1, line 10 Remove. Delete /MAN Standards Committee since that is more consistant with the prior line. Delete TAG or alternatively add "and recommended practices" after "standards". Since the PP uses sponsor, use that in the OM too. Remove b) Add to the provisions to be followed unless specified otherwise: For other matters, votes must meet the approval threshold in Robert's Rules. i.e. a simple majority for regular motions, 2/3 for calling the question, etc. This shouldn't depend on the discretion of the EC Chair. Voting rights for a VC sitting in for a WG Chair need to be addressed in the PP rather than here. Delete e) Delete "the end of" Add: The motion and tally of any email votes since the last EC meeting shall be included in the minutes of the next EC meeting. Make this 8 years and 1 month or 8.1 years. Add "and TAG". Possibly add "if the action is permitted by our regulating documents" Define concurrence of thee EC better or remove it. Possibly state that the basis for the determination should be reported to the EC. Also on line 22, use "should' rather than "shall". It may be simplest to break this into two subclauses - one for letter ballots on drafts and one for all other letter ballots. For non-draft letter ballots, at least 50% return should be required and the same passing thresholds that would apply if the vote was taken at a meeting (i.e. 75% for technical matters, RROR for other matters). "at any time from when the question has been put until another motion has been made". Note: this matches what is in RROR, but I'm concerned that since we sometimes are alternating between motions and reports that this period could be too long and the composition of the room might Combine the two sections. "When a WG has approved standards and no current projects it may enter hibernation. It may be reactivated as necessary to maintain its standards or to address new work items." Replace with a requirement that they report via submitting a summary of progress to the EC Recording Secretary for inclusion in the minutes. Also recommend that they use tutorial sessions to report. Delete a) or replace with "topics of interest" Add Q & A, feedback on IEEE 802 operation. Or delete the specific list and say that the EC Chair determines the agenda. Also delete lines 25 through 30 which are about WG and "non-LMSC entities" Start this Subclause, with "A report is not required if the WG/TAG was not the Host of the session and the following requirements were met: a) The Host complied with the defination of a host in subclause 4.2.1 of these P&P." then continue with the rest of the bullets. After the bulleted list, state "In all other cases where fees were collected for interim sessions, a WG/TAG shall prepare and submit all financial reports required by IEEE, IEEE-SA, Computer Society and LMSC regulations." I deleted WG/TAG subgroup because they aren't allowed to host. Delete the paragraph or at least state that it is an example rather than the "usual" way. Delete 5. Vote and make 5.1 into a level one heading. Reconcile the difference. Also, I think all communications with external standards bodies should be copied to the members of the EC. Add to 11.2 a requirement that PARs must be posted on ieee802.org where they are visible to meeting participants and the email sent to the EC should contain the links for viewing the PARs. WG chairs should inform their WGs of the PARs that have been circulated to the EC. Update as needed.
Pages to are hidden for
"Sheet1 - for IEEE 802"Please download to view full document