Subject: RE: Working Groups P&P Comments
From: Brophy, Dennis (dennisb@model.com)
Date: Mon Dec 29 2003 - 10:46:12 PST
All,
All of us are aware of that working group meetings are open to all and that the working group chairs have a responsibility to ensure everyone who wishes to be heard is. The IEEE reasoning on this is to comply with ANSI openness requirements.
The observer portion in our P&Ps is just a reflection of IEEE reality.
Since we live with this restriction, meeting minutes should take into account positions of all attending a meeting. Votes recorded with "observer" seem to me to make it easier to have an official recording of positions from those who are not official members. Since it is possible for observers to be in the ballot pool, it would be better to learn earlier their concerns than later since it would only server to delay a standard.
-Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-dasc-sc@eda.org [mailto:owner-stds-dasc-sc@eda.org]On
Behalf Of Yaron Kashai
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 7:12 PM
To: stds-dasc-sc@eda.org
Subject: Re: Working Groups P&P Comments
Jim, Peter,
I'm very much against this proposal that lets observers
indirect control through votes that are not counted,
but are visible and therefore influential.
Gaining membership status and voting rights is not onerous.
Members are accountable for their decisions - they have to
navigate their WG to succeed. The proposal puts the WG members
in an uneasy situation where they should take into account an
informal opinion formed by a group of people that choose not
to get involved with the actual work and not to be held
accountable to the results.
This is not about rejecting the help or the opinion of some
people, but rather requesting such willing contributors to
become an involved and accountable part of the team.
Jim, since you can live with the original language, how
about leaving it as it is?
Cheers,
-- yaron
On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, at 06:48 PM, Jim Lewis wrote:
> Peter,
> I was hoping that an observer could look at this
> document and be able to understand what they can
> do without having to reference other documents.
>
>
>>> 4.2 Observers
>>> > Observers shall be permitted to participate in discussions
>>> > at Working Group meetings and in email discussions in
>>> > accordance with the procedures of the IEEE-CS SAB.
>>>
>>> I would like this to be extended to include writing proposals
>>> (because I would like to make it clear that I would be willing to
>>> accept help from most able people).
>>>
>>> I propose to add the following sentence:
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> This includes writing change proposals and
>>> working on standards documents.
>> Rather than specifying details of what the groups do, could I propose
>> alternate wording to replace 4.2:
>> Observers shall be permitted to participate in Working Group
>> activities in
>> accordance with the procedures of the IEEE-CS SAB. Observers shall
>> not
>> vote.
>
> I prefer the original text to the above proposal. How about:
> --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
> Observers shall be permitted to participate in Working Group activities
> in accordance with the procedures of the IEEE-CS SAB. This includes
> participating in discussions at Working Group meetings and in email
> discussions. If an observer casts a vote in a working group ballot,
> they shall place the word "[observer]" before their vote and their
> vote shall not be counted in the working group vote.
> --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
> This gives the WG the ability to vote and at the same time, see
> the opinion of a wider community. My intent is that when we get
> to the standards balloting through the SA that things go smooth.
> If everyone in the WG says yes, but a large body in the wider
> community says no, the WG may want to reconsider their position
> before submitting the draft for standards balloting.
>
> If this does not work, lets keep the current text in the
> document. I can live with it.
>
> Cheers,
> Jim
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jim Lewis
> Director of Training mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com
> SynthWorks Design Inc. http://www.SynthWorks.com
> 1-503-590-4787
>
> Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Dec 29 2003 - 10:49:04 PST