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
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 126.96.36.199 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 188.8.131.52 5 2
42 Pat Thaler OM 184.108.40.206 6 3
43 Pat Thaler OM 220.127.116.11 6 13
44 Pat Thaler OM 18.104.22.168 5 22
45 Pat Thaler OM 3.2.1 7 41
46 Pat Thaler OM 22.214.171.124 10 4
47 Pat Thaler OM 3.2.3 10 32
48 Pat Thaler OM 126.96.36.199.1 11 6
49 Pat Thaler OM 188.8.131.52.2 11 13
50 Pat Thaler OM 184.108.40.206.3 12 6
51 Pat Thaler OM 220.127.116.11 13 3
52 Pat Thaler OM 18.104.22.168 12 35
53 Pat Thaler OM 22.214.171.124 14 3
54 Pat Thaler OM 126.96.36.199 14 7
55 Pat Thaler OM 188.8.131.52 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
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
i) what does this mean - how do we determine
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
Also, should this list say something about the
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
", 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
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
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
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
Inconsistant - Elsewhere LAN MAN Standards
Committee has no slash
PAN and RAN only appear here - they aren't used in
LMSC should be LAN or delete "/MAN Standards
Delete TAG - PP 5.2 says TAGs can't develop
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
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
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 - 184.108.40.206 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
"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
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
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
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?
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.
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 220.127.116.11 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.
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
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.
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
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 "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
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
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
Also delete lines 25 through 30 which are about WG and
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
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.