Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ P802.3ah conditional approval

Bob-

OK, we agree to disagree. That is why these things are voted on by more than one person.

You are right. There is no requirement for a summary. We have often done a summary of remaining issues as a courtesy to the  Exec. I believe it is appropriate but it is true it is not a requirement.

It is my recollection that the issue was deferred because I requested that the unresolved comments be presented (as per procedure 10) and the chair felt that reviewing that many would take too much time to be done in session.

As to "Now you are arguing that it is too many to review in a 10 day ballot."
My opinion is that Procedure 10 asks for a much more concise presentation than something that needs up to 10 days to review.

But that is just what I think.

Best regards,

Geoff



At 04:48 PM 11/21/2003 -0800, Grow, Bob wrote:

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).

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. 

 
 

 

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.