July 2010 Notes on IEEE 802 Rules Review IEEE 802 Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: ec EC Date Submitted: Source: Matthew ShermanVoice: BAE 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 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 IEEEs name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEEs 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 Patent Policy: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy and Procedures: and. Further information is located at and. 1

Notes on IEEE 802 LMSC Rules Review July 2010 Plenary Session San Diego, CA Edward D meeting room Sunday July 11, :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 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 submittal2/16/10 Are willing to review C/LM P&P if desired EC realizes that P&P must be via My Project2/10 Vice Chair cant 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 comments4/15/10 AudCom approval process… 10

Editorial issues are based on and verbal exchanges between Ron Petersen (AudCom reviewer) and Mat Sherman (EC) Key Editorial Issues (4/15/10 concerns and 5/11/10 responses) Recording Secretary Comment: 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. Wed prefer not to formally state the person responsible unless absolutely necessary. 4.2.Review of Membership Comment: Consider establishing minimal meeting requirements. The 2 nd 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. Wed 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 presentednot 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? AudComs 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 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 Exchanges 16

Consensus Resolution At Rules review group reviewed Mat Shermans 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 EC: IEEE 802 LMSC P&P revisions for ballot (rev ) ec EC: IEEE 802 LMSC OM revisions for ballot (rev ) ec EC: IEEE 802 LMSC WG P&P revisions for ballot (rev ) 19

ec EC: IEEE 802 LMSC P&P revisions for ballot (rev ) Mat needs to review AudCom baseline and update draft revision for LMSC P&P ec EC: IEEE 802 LMSC OM revisions for ballot (rev ) ec EC: IEEE 802 LMSC WG P&P revisions for ballot (rev ) Pending Rules Ballots 20

Summary of Actions / Agreements on LMSC P&P Revision At rules review, reviewed ec EC (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 EC (LMSC OM) –Did a quick pass through, but didnt 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 EC (LMSC WG P&P) –Did a quick pass through, but didnt 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 arent critical –Wont 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: " 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."