July 2010 Notes on IEEE 802 Rules Review

IEEE 802 Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number:

ec-10-0012-00-00ECDate Submitted:

2010-07-12Source:

Matthew Sherman Voice: +1-973-633-6344 BAE Systems E-mail: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com IEEE 802 Vice Chair

Venue:IEEE 802 July 2010 Plenary Session

Base Contribution:N/A

Purpose:Background on Governance Issues for discussions

Notice:This document does not represent the agreed views of the IEEE 802.16 Working Group or any of its subgroups. It represents only the views of the participants listed in the “Source(s)” field above. It is offered as a basis for discussion. It is not binding on the contributor(s), who reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.

Release:The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that

this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.16.

Patent Policy:The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy and Procedures:

<http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6> and <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3>.Further information is located at <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.html> and <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat >.

1

Notes on IEEE 802 LMSC Rules Review

July 2010 Plenary Session

San Diego, CA Edward D meeting room

Sunday July 11, 2010 18:00-22:00

2

• Newcomer background• Sponsor Ballot Comment Resolution Committee• Review AudCom Editorial Revision• Review draft LMSC P&P Revision• Review draft LMSC OM Revision• Review draft LMSC WG P&P Revision• Review rules for confidentiality and copyright notices

AGENDA

3

* -Items in Red were not discussed as group adjourned before completing the agenda

Attendees on 7/11/10

• Matthew Sherman• Paul Nikolich• Pat Thaler• Jon Rosdahl• Bob Grow• David Law• Subir Das• Geoff Thompson• Clint Chaplin

Newcomer background

5

• IEEE Standards Association (IEEE SA)• IEEE SA Standards Board (IEEE SASB)• IEEE SASB Audit Committee (AudCom)• IEEE 802 LAN / MAN Standards Committee (IEEE 802)• Working Group (WG)• Policies And Procedures (P&P)• Operation Manual (OM)

Key Acronyms

6

• Most used rules documents

• IEEE SASB OM• IEEE 802 P&P• IEEE 802 OM• IEEE 802 WG P&P• Roberts Rules

• Many other governance documents exist, but are reference in-frequently

• References to key governance documents may be found at• http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/devdocs.shtml

• Note that IEEE 802 often relies on conventions and tradition• Not everything is written down

• E.g. how to enter a PAR in My Project

Key Rules Documents

7

Sponsor Ballot Comment Resolution Committee (SBCRC)

• The question is does the LMSC WG P&P apply to SBCRC?

• Question hinges on where the SBCRC is a “Sponsor” activity or a “WG” activity– Concern is that 75% approval threshold for technical votes only applies

for WG, not Sponsor

• LMSC P&P clause 8 deals with balloting groups but sheds no light

• LMSC WG P&P clause 5a indicates that WG is responsible to “Complete projects … through to IEEE-SA Standards Board approval” – Appears to delegate comment resolution process to the WG suggesting

it should be governed by the WG P&P

AudCom Editorials

9

• EC approves new P&P 11/20/09• EC submits to AudCom for review / posting

11/28/09• P&P is not posted….

• Ping AudCom on status 2/13/10• AudCom responds they were not aware of EC submittal 2/16/10

• Are willing to review C/LM P&P if desired• EC realizes that P&P must be via My Project 2/10

• Vice Chair can’t submit, must be Chair of EC• Chair submits• Still P&P is not posted…

• Ping Audcom again4/10/10• AudCom had responded to IEEE 802 with comments in my project and

never received a response • Receive AudCom comments

4/15/10

AudCom approval process…

10

• Editorial issues are based on e-mail and verbal exchanges between Ron Petersen (AudCom reviewer) and Mat Sherman (EC)

• Key Editorial Issues (4/15/10 concerns and 5/11/10 responses)• 3.4.3. Recording SecretaryComment: Who schedules meetings?Response: The Executive Secretary typical schedules the sessions which occurs often years in advance of the actual meeting.  The meeting times themselves are generally determined by the Recording Secretary with guidance from the Chair. We’d prefer not to formally state the person responsible unless absolutely necessary.• 4.2. Review of MembershipComment: Consider establishing minimal meeting requirements. The 2nd paragraph of 4.1 regarding meeting requirements seems arbitrary as does the term “habitual default” in 4.2. Who decides?Response: We believe these sections have not changed from the prior version of the rules, and should not be under consideration.  Just the proposed changes should be considered.  However, I see this as a “dereliction of duty” issue.  I think anyone could bring forward an issue with another members behavior for potential disciplinary action.  The group would decide as a whole if specific remedies (including possible removal from their position) is required.  Each member of the group would consider if for themselves if the “habitual default” threshold is met.  We’d prefer to not have specific attendance requirements.

AudCom Editorial Concerns

11

• Regarding your response to 3.4.3: we disagree with the response. We have no argument with the process – but it should be stated somewhere in the P&Ps.

• Regarding the response to 4.2: AudCom reviews P&Ps in total as they are presented—not only the changes from an earlier version. However, we accept your explanation and no change is necessary.

• New Issue:• In 1.0 the Sponsor is defined as the LMSC Executive

Committee. If “EC” in 3.0 means “Executive Committee,” it would appear to the reader that the first sentence could be interpreted as stating that the officers of the Sponsor serve as the officers of the Sponsor. Is there some subtle point that we are missing?

AudCom’s Response to Responses (5/24/10)

12

Regarding the term “sponsor” there was at one time a view that the Sponsor was the LMSC, which included all the LMSC subgroups.  The EC acted on behalf of the sponsor.  Over time, the view that the EC is the sponsor has won out, and was codified by words we put at the front of our P&P (which say the EC is the sponsor).  So yes, the statement at the beginning of 3.0 is saying the sponsor is the sponsor.  At one time, it said that the officers of the EC are the corresponding officers of the LMSC.  When we globally replaced the term LMSC with Sponsor, the meaning became confused.

EC response to sponsor issue (5/27/10)

13

• Agenda Item considered• C/LM requested approval of minor changes made to their P&Ps

after they were approved in March 2009. If C/LM revises their P&Ps again in 2010, they will bring the document up to date with the current baseline document.

• Can current changes could be approved with C/LM initiating new set of changes to address AudCom issues?• Answer was no – Must address issues for approval

• Ultimately agreed that changes were “editorial” and the following motion passed:• Conditional approval based on the acceptance of recommended

editorial changes (for clarification).

Additional Dialog at AudCom (6/15/10)

14

• New Issue (7/1/10)• The first sentence in the 2nd paragraph of Clause 3 that appears in

the baseline P&Ps, i.e., “Officers shall be members of any grade of the IEEE and members of the IEEE-SA,” has been omitted from the LMSC P&Ps. Are non-IEEE members permitted to be officers?

First set of Editorial Changes (6/27/10)

15

• The membership requirements are in Clause 4 (7/1/10)• All members of the LMSC Sponsor shall be members or affiliates

of the IEEE-SA and either the IEEE or the IEEE Computer Society.

• AudCom does not find this acceptable (7/1/10)• I would like to see the sentence added to Clause 3 to make it

perfectly clear that the officers shall be members of any grade of the IEEE and members of the IEEE-SA to make it perfectly clear.

• Mat explains this in not an “editorial Change (7/2/10)• Agree on compromise language• Any future revision will need to bring P&P into

conformance with current AudCom Baseline

Additional Email Exchanges

16

Consensus Resolution

• At Rules review group reviewed Mat Sherman’s proposed changes for AudCom and agreed on alternate set of changes

Agreed Path Forward

• Contact AudCom to see if alternate set of changes agreeable– If not fall back to what we had

• Ask EC to approve as comment resolution on original ‘09 ballot at Closing meeting– If yes, send changes to AudCom for posting– If no, initiate formal 30 day rules ballot

Review of proposed revisions:

ec-10-0004-00-00EC: IEEE 802 LMSC P&P revisions for ballot (rev 3-19-10)ec-10-0005-00-00EC: IEEE 802 LMSC OM revisions for ballot (rev 3-19-10)

ec-10-0006-00-00EC: IEEE 802 LMSC WG P&P revisions for ballot (rev 3-19-10)

19

• ec-10-0004-00-00EC: IEEE 802 LMSC P&P revisions for ballot (rev 3-19-10)• Mat needs to review AudCom baseline and update draft

revision for LMSC P&P • ec-10-0005-00-00EC: IEEE 802 LMSC OM revisions for

ballot (rev 3-19-10)• ec-10-0006-00-00EC: IEEE 802 LMSC WG P&P revisions

for ballot (rev 3-19-10)

Pending Rules Ballots

20

Summary of Actions / Agreements on LMSC P&P Revision

• At rules review, reviewed ec-10-0004-00-00EC (LMSC P&P)– Reduced use of “IEEE 802 LMSC EC” in favor of

“Sponsor”

– Made adjustments to agree with AudCom editorials

– Mat Sherman still needs to review latest AudCom Baseline P&P for impact and will issue new revision

– Does not seem to be a hurry to vote this revision

Summary of Actions / Agreements on LMSC OM Revision

• At rules review, reviewed ec-10-0005-00-00EC (LMSC OM)– Did a quick pass through, but didn’t see anything that

needed fixing

– Only substantive change is to require approval of rules changes at a plenary meeting (4.1.4)

Summary of Actions / Agreements on LMSC WG P&P Revision

• Reviewed ec-10-0006-00-00EC (LMSC WG P&P)– Did a quick pass through, but didn’t see anything that needed fixing

– Substantive changes are• Move responsibilities for things like meeting minutes from chair to

secretary (6.5.1 / 6.5.3)

• Fix Task group membership issue! (7.3)

Summary Recommendations on Pending Revisions

• LMSC P&P modifications aren’t critical– Won’t take effect for a year anyway

• LMSC WG P&P changes are critical– Really should vote it this meeting

– Not that complex

• LMSC OM changes– Not critical, but very simple

– Should just vote and get it over with it

• Mat Sherman will post updated revs with latest editing

The rest of these slides were not review

Meeting adjourned around 9 PM(Low attendance)

25

Review of Confidential notice and copyright rules

26

• Do we need a formal statement in our P&P or OM?

Copyright and Confidentiality

27

In the IEEE-SASB OpMan:

"4.1.1.5 Confidentiality Statements and Copyright Notices on Communications

The IEEE-SA Standards Board and its committees operate in an open manner. To that end, no material submitted to the IEEE-SA Standards Board or its committees will be accepted or considered if it contains any statement that places any burden on the recipient(s) with respect to confidentiality or copyright. Any communication, including electronic mail, containing language with such restrictive wording will not be accepted or considered.

It should be noted that this policy does not apply to IEEE copyrighted materials, such as draft standards, or to materials to or from IEEE counsel appropriately classified as attorney-client privileged. In the event that copyrighted materials are to be incorporated in an IEEE standard, an acceptable copyright release or assignment must be obtained from the copyright owner prior to approval of the standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board."