1. Matthew Sherman’s Comments to 802.19 P&P
Sept 2005
doc.: IEEE /0036r0
Sept 2005
Matthew Sherman’s Comments to P&P
Date: 2005-Sept-20
Authors:
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) 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
Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures < ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the TAG of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE TAG. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at
Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio Plc
Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio Plc

2. Summary Sept 2005 Comment 1 – Section 2 Comment 2 – General
The P&P must have a procedure for electing officers.
Comment 2 – General
State that a membership list will be maintained by the TAG.
Comment 3 – General
The P&P needs a section on rules for an appeal.
Comment 4 – Section 2.2
Mat recommended that the vice chair be elected instead of being appointed.
Comment 5 – General
The P&P needs to include an order of precedence of other documents (802 P&P, Roberts Rules).
Comment 6 – Section 1
The section on the functions of the TAG is not necessary. Check other WG P&P.
Comment 7 – Section 5.1.2
In section on interim sessions always say "interim sessions" not just "sessions."
Comment 8 – Section 5.2
Under maintenance of the P&P say it has to be at a plenary or electronic ballot.
Comment 9 – Section 6
Reference voting rules in 802 (in a meeting and electronically).
Comment 10 – Section 5.2
Drop the rule that says the SEC needs to approve a revised P&P.
Comment 11 – Section 6.2
What is a "Charter?"
Comment 12 – Section 6
Clarify that the TAG comments on aspects of the draft that affect coexistence and the CA document.
Comment 13 – Section and 6.2.4
Why do individuals mark comments as binding or non-binding since the algorithm does not utilize that information?
Comment 14 – Section 6.2.3
Clarify what to do with the comments that receive support of over 25% and less than 2/3.
Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio Plc

3. Sept 2005
Comment 1 – Section 2
Comment: The P&P must have a procedure for electing officers.
Resolution: Add: Chair and vice chair shall be elected by majority vote at a Plenary session.
Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio Plc

4. Sept 2005
Comment 2 – General
State that a membership list will be maintained by the TAG.
Add: Chair is responsible for maintenance of the TAG membership list.
Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio Plc

5. Comment 3 – General The P&P needs a section on rules for an appeal.
Sept 2005
Comment 3 – General
The P&P needs a section on rules for an appeal.
Add:
The membership may override a decision by the chair with a 75% of members who vote “yes” or “no” on the appeal.
An individual not satisfied by TAG resolution of an appeal shall be referred to the Executive Committee of the LSMC.
Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio Plc

6. Sept 2005
Comment 4 – Section 2.2
Mat recommended that the vice chair be elected instead of being appointed.
Done
Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio Plc

7. Sept 2005
Comment 5 – General
The P&P needs to include an order of precedence of other documents (802 P&P, Roberts Rules).
Declined: this is specified by our chartering organization pp5, section 1 of March P&P.
Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio Plc

8. Sept 2005
Comment 6 – Section 1
The section on the functions of the TAG is not necessary. Check other WG P&P.
Declined, this describes the scope of the group. It is informative and helps the reader to set context. This is just like section 2 of the 802 P&P that describes the LMSC scope.
Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio Plc

9. Sept 2005
Comment 7 – Section 5.1.2
In section on interim sessions always say "interim sessions" not just "sessions.“ OK
Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio Plc

10. Sept 2005
Comment 8 – Section 5.2
Under maintenance of the P&P say it has to be at a plenary or electronic ballot.
Add: (3) Votes must be taken either at plenary meetings or by electronic ballot.
Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio Plc

11. Sept 2005
Comment 9 – Section 6
Reference voting rules in 802 (in a meeting and electronically).
Declined: not clear what need there is for a reference to LMSC rules when they have precedence.
Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio Plc

12. Sept 2005
Comment 10 – Section 5.2
Drop the rule that says the SEC needs to approve a revised P&P.
Accepted
Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio Plc

13. Comment 11 – Section 6.2 What is a "Charter?“ Accepted reworded:
Sept 2005
Comment 11 – Section 6.2
What is a "Charter?“
Accepted reworded:
The TAG supports the creation…
Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio Plc

14. Sept 2005
Comment 12 – Section 6
Clarify that the TAG comments on aspects of the draft that affect coexistence and the CA document.
Declined: Section 1 states: “The TAG also votes as a body on coexistence issues in wireless working group letter ballots that are accompanied by coexistence assurance (CA) documents.” Also, section states: “TAG members evaluate the CA document and draft to determine the correctness or completeness of the CA document.”
Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio Plc

15. Sept 2005
Comment 13 – Section and 6.2.4
Why do individuals mark comments as binding or non-binding since the algorithm does not utilize that information?
Declined: The TAG does use the attribute to determine if the lack of satisfaction of the comment will prevent TAG approval of a CA document.
Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio Plc

16. Sept 2005
Comment 14 – Section 6.2.3
Clarify what to do with the comments that receive support of over 25% and less than 2/3.
Accepted: will reword to make it clearer: “…it shall be identified as a binding comment”
Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio Plc