Re: [802SEC] Submission of P802.1s
Howard -
That is a good thought & I will bear that in mind - however, as I indicated
before, my expectation at this point is that the recirc will likely be clean.
Regards,
Tony
At 14:28 09/10/2002 -0700, Howard Frazier wrote:
>Tony,
>
>To add to the confusion, let me mention the
>RevCom "Early Consideration" process. If
>the recirc of P802.1s results in comments which
>require changes or another recirc, then you could
>issue such a recirc right after the Kauai meeting, and
>still get it closed before the December RevCom
>meeting, which may allow you to submit the
>document for inclusion in the January, 2003
>Early Consideration cycle.
>
>The timing would be VERY tight, particularly since
>the December RevCom meeting will be held
>in Florida (away from the Standards Dept
>headquarters). From talking with David Ringle,
>the submittal package would have to arrive
>in Piscataway no later than December 4th.
>
>So, if you want to keep the option of submitting
>for early consideration open, you should alert
>Angela, and keep her and Carol Bonfiglio informed.
>
>
>Howard
>
>Geoff Thompson wrote:
>
>>Tony-
>>
>>So your plan is:?
>> 1) If no new disapproves or draft changing comments
>> Submit 11/1 for December with no new recirculation
>> 2) If new disapproves or draft changing comments
>> Submit for March REVCOM meeting
>>
>>There is no point to doing comment resolution at the November meeting if
>>you have submitted except in the VERY limited circumstances set forth below.
>>
>>The Sponsor Ballot process requires that you "consider" all comments. I
>>would have to assume that the "consideration" of comments is not serious
>>if the session for doing that is not scheduled until after the package is
>>submitted to REVCOM. It would be arguable at REVCOM that you were not
>>following the process if you were to do that even if all of the comments
>>received were APPROVE/Editorial. The only way out that you would have to
>>argue against this point (and you should argue this) is that the comment
>>resolution meeting has the right to pull the package from the REVCOM
>>agenda if there is any comment resolution which would change the draft or
>>require an additional recirc.
>>
>>The only other appropriate draft changing "product" of the November
>>comment resolution meeting would be a list of changes that the
>>publications editor could "consider" during preparation for publication.
>>
>>The other method, of course, is that you could have a comment resolution
>>meeting between close of recirc and Nov.1.
>>
>>I 'spect you know all of this, but I figured it was a good opportunity to
>>keep things clear for all of the other WG Chairs.
>>
>>Geoff
>>
>>
>>At 03:34 PM 10/9/2002 +0100, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>>
>>>At the last Plenary I was granted approval to submit P802.1s for Sponsor
>>>ballot. That ballot completed with no Disapprove votes, and a small
>>>number of minor technical and editorial comments. I have already
>>>requested a Sponsor recirculation ballot of P802.1s/D15 to confirm the
>>>small number of resultant changes; my expectation is that the
>>>recirculation will not throw up any additional problems, and will
>>>confirm the existing 100% approval rating.
>>>
>>>Given the timing of the submission deadline for the December RevCom (1st
>>>November), I would if at all possible like to be able to submit P802.1s
>>>to RevCom in time to meet that deadline. Therefore, I would like to make
>>>the following SEC motion:
>>>
>>>"SEC grants conditional approval for forwarding P802.1s/D15 to RevCom,
>>>under SEC Procedure 10".
>>>
>>>Collateral information:
>>>
>>>- Ballot of P802.1s/D14.1 closed 2002-09-09
>>>- Voting tally: 23 Approve, 0 Disapprove, 3 Abstain
>>>- No Disapprove comments or votes
>>>- Confirmation ballot has been requested; ballot resolution (if needed)
>>>will be conducted during the Kauai meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Tony
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Regards,
Tony