Dear Colleagues: I have a few comments on the P&P. With one exception my comments require minor modifications. Please read from COMMENT 3 on, if you want to skip the minor ones. COMMENT 1: Line 79, "then" should probably be "than" COMMENT 2: Lines 207-208, rephrase "review and approve a PAR in a single meeting as long as such was on the agenda for..." to "review and approve a PAR in a single meeting as long as such PAR topic was on the agenda for..." ------------------- COMMENT 3: DASC does and will participate in Joint Committees with the IEC and/or other standard organizations. At least the procedures for the formation of so called "sub-groups" which work jointly with the IEC should be listed. There might be other needed additional rules or restrictions (see below). Therefore, I propose to extend an invitation to the IEEE staff responsible for the international standardization, to review our DASC P&P and suggest necessary additional rules, and not approve the P&P without reviewing scenarios of at least joint IEEE-IEC work. Note that the only relevant line in the actual draft is line 65: "5. Cooperating with other appropriate standards development organizations" Note that this Joint Committees or Joint Working Groups are not proper subgroups of the DASC. In fact even the Working Groups which DASC recommends to be formed, are not sub-groups of the DASC if we take a formal interpretation for "sub-group." That is because due to the openness policies of the IEEE and SA the working groups have to be open for participation to any IEEE members (not just DASC members) and maybe any other interested parties. That's why I stated my position that DASC can form only steering (read managing) bodies, like the steering committees as sub-groups, without violating the openness policy about participation. For the WGs it recommends the formation, it gets approval, and has rules on how those are formed (and managed) but it does not configure itself into those. More than that, the voting rules in groups which are joint WGs (co-sponsored WGs) should not be firmly stating that only members of the DASC have rights to vote. Therefore, I consider all this new view that all DASC efforts are performed by sub-groups has to be at least extended with explanations that: 1. "Sub-groups" are in fact not sub-groups in the concise understanding of the term (how sad!) and that this is just a literary (??) name for the working groups managed or co-managed by DASC (note that this is a presentation of a concern stated in a provocative manner, see point 4 below) 2. Conditioning voting rights by DASC membership in what it is called in the current P&P "sub-groups" does not apply for Working Groups (also called "sub-groups" in the actual P&P) where there is a joint participation from an outside DASC group, if the parent of such other group co-manages the effort. 3. Election of the officers of the Joint Working Groups has to observe the Memorandum of Understanding between the DASC and the co-sponsoring entity, or any MOUs between the IEEE and the other standardization body. Such MOUs may overwrite the P&P which apply to what are called now DASC "sub-groups." 4. Of course we could do better and come up with a better term than "sub-groups" like for example "sponsored or co-sponsored working groups." I hope this makes clearer my position about the steering-only potential of proper DASC sub-groups, but also uncovers some more work to be done on the P&Ps :-( Enjoy the day! Alex Zamfirescu On 3/28/07, Victor Berman <victorb@improvsys.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear DASC Members, > > > > I have update the draft P&Ps based on the discussion at our last meeting > plus the email discussion that has been going on since the meeting. > > > > I believe I have addressed all the issues raised with the exception of the > issues around subgroup position statements which I have left unchanged for > now. My reasoning is as follows: > > 1. The current wording allows expeditious position statements if > there are no objections > > 2. The current wording allows expeditious position statements if > 2/3 of the group members vote within 5 days > > 3. Position statements are not the same as company press > releases and I do not think they have the same urgency. > > > > That said, we can still modify this section if there is consensus on how to > word it. > > > > Comments on the draft are due by COB on Friday, April 13, 2007 east coast > time. We plan to discuss the final draft at the next DASC meeting on April > 18 and then have a vote as soon as the draft can be updated. > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > > > > Victor Berman > > President & CEO > > Improv Systems, Inc. > > Email: victorb@improvsys.com > > Office: 978 927 0555 x 27 > > Mobile: 978 390 7704 > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > -- Alex Zamfirescu 650-814-7514 alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com ========= This communication, and its attachments, may contain privileged, or confidential information, intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication, and/or shred the materials and any attachments, and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Interception of e-mail is a crime under the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me by reply e-mail at alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them, or saving them to disk. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. ========= -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Apr 9 21:24:49 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 09 2007 - 21:25:21 PDT