Re: [802SEC] Submission of P802.1s
Roger -
Thanks for the suggestion. If I hear no counter-argument, I will withdraw
my motion, pre-submit, and make a motion in Kauai to approve the submission
(or to withdraw it from the RevCom agenda in the event that that becomes
necessary).
Alternatively, if anyone considers this motion to be necessary, a second
would be appreciated.
Regards,
Tony
At 17:30 09/10/2002 -0600, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>Tony,
>
>In my view, you do not need a Procedure 10 email ballot in order to
>proceed with your plans.
>
>I am in a situation similar to yours. If all goes well, I have been
>planning to pre-submit to RevCom by the 1 November deadline without asking
>for SEC approval (conditional or otherwise). Then, in Hawaii, I will ask
>the SEC for approval to keep the draft on the RevCom agenda.
>
>I have followed this procedure before, on Jim Carlo's recommendation, and
>other groups have as well. For instance, at the July 2001 SEC Closing
>Meeting, we were informed that 802.3ag would be pre-submitted for the
>November RevCom agenda and would be reviewed by the SEC in November. Then,
>at the November 2001 Opening SEC Meeting, we learned that 802.3ag was
>indeed on the RevCom agenda, along with 802.15.1 and 802.16. At the Friday
>Closing Meeting, the SEC approved keeping 802.15.1 and 802.16 on the
>RevCom agenda. {Curiously, the minutes don't seem to show a motion
>regarding 802.3ag, though the 802 project planning spreadsheet says we did
>approve it in November.}
>
>In summary, pre-submission is an 802 tradition that is not prohibited by
>the rules does not preclude SEC review. I think you should go ahead.
>
>Roger
>
>
>At 10:53 PM +0100 02/10/09, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> >At 09:58 09/10/2002 -0700, Geoff Thompson wrote:
> >>Tony-
> >>
> >>So your plan is:?
> >
> >To follow Procedure 10 <G> - but see below.
> >
> >> 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
> >
> >Correct. Basically, if we get substantive comments on the recirc, then I
> won't submit the draft for the 11/1 deadline (or will have it pulled from
> the agenda). I expect the recirc will complete in time to make that
> choice ahead of 11/1.
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >That is possible - if, for example, there were a small number of minor,
> and entirely editorial, comments.
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >As you suspected.
> >
> >Actually, the fact that you/I had to spell this out "blow by blow"
> should give you a small hint that Procedure 10 is somewhat lacking. If
> the letter of Procedure 10 is followed, then as long as there are no new
> *negatives*, the procedure would allow me to ignore other comments that
> might be received. Clearly that would be in conflict with the overall
> principle that all comments get due consideration.
> >
> >And no, that wasn't an offer to propose a rule change!
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >
> >>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
Regards,
Tony