RE: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ P802.3ah conditional approval
Mat -
I believe that the rules we inherit from on high indicate that if the
work has 75% or greater approval, that we are obligated to progress it to
standard with all speed, consistent with properly addressing the comments
of the minority. To quote from the Standards Companion:
"Once you have achieved
consensus, an obligation to the majority exists to approve and publish
the standard quickly. However, you are obligated to respond to the
negative comments of the minority. You should attempt to resolve those
negative comments, but if there is no indication that further resolution
can be achieved based on that, you should move your document forward for
approval, still having met the terms of consensus."
Earlier in the same section it defines "consensus" to be
75% or better approval rate.
Regards,
Tony
At 01:48 22/11/2003, Matthew Sherman \(Home\) wrote:
Bob / all,
The one things that does bother me a little is that while 84% meets
the
letter of the rule, it is a bit short of where I thought we normally
send
things to sponsor. I have generally been encouraged to get at least
90% or
preferably 95% before going to sponsor ballot. In fact, I have
sometimes
discouraged people from sending stuff up to the EC specifically because
it
fell short of this goal and therefore I did not think it would make
it
through an EC vote.
Does anyone have any comments on the idea of sending thing out to
sponsor
with less than 90 or 95% approval?
Mat
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org]On
Behalf Of Grow, Bob
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 7:48 PM
To: IEEE802
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ P802.3ah conditional
approval
Geoff:
I must respectfully disagree with most of your arguments, finding
them
invalid.
1. There is no
requirement to provide a summary of the comments. In
fact, the requirement is to supply the comments and responses. That
has
been done with a URL.
2. Consideration of the
motion was deferred because you complained the
number of comments was too many to review in the EC meeting. Now
you are
arguing that it is too many to review in a 10 day ballot. The
number of
unresolved comments does not relieve our responsibilities for
administering
the process, and we would have to do so in the case of an
unconditional
request for forwarding to Sponsor Ballot. The only difference
between an
unconditional approval and the requested conditional approval is that
19
comments included in the current recirculation might possibly be reduced
in
number. The comments already recirculated but still unresolved
would not
decrease with were this an unconditional approval for Sponsor Ballot.
3. I will not attempt
to dispute your subjective judgment that the 65
unresolved comments contra-indicate that "...ballot resolution
efforts have
been substantially completed...", other than to reiterate that of
these
comments, only 19 unresolved comments are from the D2.1 ballot and 7 of
the
19 are pile-on comments to D2.0 comments. Each member of the EC
must make
their own subjective judgment if this criteria has been met.
4. The number of
comments you cite as evidence of lack of consensus is
not supported by the approval ratio. The approval ratio at 84%
remains well
above the required 75%.
5. The schedule for
resolution of comments was presented to the SEC
when the motion was originally presented at the closing EC meeting.
My
apologies for the lack of redundancy in presenting that information
again
with the motion. If the recirculation ballot produces no comments,
there
will be no meeting. If there are comments, a BRC will meet
via
teleconference on 4 December to resolve the comments. The BRC
meeting with
short notice was approved by 802.3 (56, 0, 21).
There are things in the P802.3ah draft that I personally don't
like. I have
concerns about what I believe are technical problems in the draft.
I have
unresolved comments from D2.0 (supported by some D2.1 pile-on
comments). No
D2.0 voter's comments were persuasive enough make the recirculation
ballot
fail. Independent of my personal concerns expressed through the
Working
Group ballot, I recognize that at the EC I am not to judge the
technical
content of the draft, but I am to judge if the procedural requirements
have
been met and defer to the technical judgment of the ballot group.
I as Chair and each member of the EC have obligations to both the
minority
and the majority of the ballot group. Though a minority remain
unsatisfied,
their comments were and are being recirculated to the ballot group.
I
believe our obligation to them has been fulfilled. We now have
an
obligation to act per the expressed will of the majority.
--Bob Grow
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 12:08 PM
To: Paul Nikolich
Cc: IEEE802
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ P802.3ah conditional
approval
Colleagues-
Please read Procedure 10 carefully BEFORE you vote.
Procedure 10 was specifically put in place to bring consistency to
the
conditional approval process.
My vote is DISAPPROVE
My primary rationale:
The requirements of Procedure 10 have NOT been met.
Specifically (extracted verbatim from procedure 10):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Motions requesting conditional approval to forward where the prior
ballot
has closed shall be accompanied by:
* Date the ballot closed [GOT: 2.1 closed 3-Nov per slide 2]
* Vote tally including Approve, Disapprove and Abstain votes
[GOT: Buried in table slide 2,
92/18/6
* Comments that support the remaining disapprove votes and Working
Group
responses.
[GOT: Unsatisfied requirement,
further comments below.]
* Schedule for confirmation ballot and resolution
[GOT: Unsatisfied requirement,
further comments below.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RE: Remaining Disapproves:
802.3 has not provided a concise summary of the "remaining
disapprove votes
and Working Group responses" to you in this motion package per the
"shall be
accompanied by" requirement. Rather they have merely provided a
pointer to:
"Complete comment databases from these two ballots are available
at:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/efm/public/comments/."
This does not meet the requirement
This has the effect of masking the extent to which consensus has or has
not
been met.
The fact that there are (slide 3) "65 unresolved Technical
Required
(negative) comments" really means that there are too many comments
to be
reviewed during an EC motion. ["Seeking conditional approval is
only
appropriate when ballot resolution efforts have been substantially
completed..."] This issue has been ducked by not meeting the
requirement and
exposing the dissenting votes. It is my belief that this project, at
this
point in the process, is an inappropriate stretch of the intention
of
Procedure 10.
RE: Schedule for confirmation ballot:
I don't understand why the required specifics have not been provided
instead
of the generalities provided below. The schedule for recirc is known as
the
ballot has already been opened. There seems to me no meeting scheduled
for
resolution of comments. I assert that this is a requirement of this
procedure.
Sincerely,
Geoff
At 11:56 AM 11/21/2003 -0500, Paul Nikolich wrote:
Dear SEC members,
This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination by EC motion
to
conditionally approve P802.3ah to begin Sponsor Ballot.
Motion
The LMSC executive committee grants conditional approval per Procedure
10,
for P802.3ah sponsor ballot pending successful completion of the
working
group ballot process.
Moved by Bob Grow
Seconded by Tony Jeffree
The email ballot opens on Friday Nov 21 NOON EST and Monday Dec 1 NOON
EST.
Please direct your responses to the EC reflector with a CC directly to
me
( p.nikolich@ieee.org
<mailto:p.nikolich@ieee.org>
).
Regards,
- Paul Nikolich
Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC
Colleagues:
During the closing EC meeting, consideration of conditional approval
for
P802.3ah progressing to sponsor ballot was deferred for email
consideration.
* The working
group vote for conditional approval passed Y: 57, N: 2,
A: 17 as shown in the attachment.
* This EC vote is
being conducted in parallel with the second working
group recirculation ballot. This timing will allow a sponsor ballot
to be
conducted prior to the Vancouver interim meeting if the recirculation
ballot
results satisfy Procedure 10 of the LMSC P&P. There is
insufficient time
for conduct of a working group ballot, EC ballot and sponsor ballot
in
serial prior to the Vancouver meeting.
* If the
requirements of Procedure 10 are met, the sponsor ballot will
open very quickly after close of the working group recirculation.
* The initial
P802.3ah/D2.0 working group ballot closed 3 Sep 2003 and
the first WG recirculation ballot on P802.3ah/D2.1 closed 3 Nov
2003.
Complete comment databases from these two ballots are available at:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/efm/public/comments/
<http://www.ieee802.org/3/efm/public/comments/>
.
* The ballot
results are in the attached report.
* Unresolved
(unsatisfied) negative comments from D2.0 were included
in the D2.1 recirculation.
* Unresolved
(unsatisfied) negative comments from both D2.1 and D2.0
are included in the D2.2 recirculation.
* If you want
access to the drafts, please contact Howard or me for
the username and password.
Motion
The LMSC executive committee grants conditional approval per Procedure
10,
for P802.3ah sponsor ballot pending successful completion of the
working
group ballot process.
Regards,
Tony