Re: [802SEC] EC Motion to Conditionally Approve Forwarding of P802.17 to Revcom
I agree with Bob that the motion is unnecessary.
At the SEC meeting of 14 November 2003, we discussed this issue. I
said that I had always interpreted Procedure 10 to be valid for only
one recirc. However, some SEC members disagreed. I was persuaded by
the discussion that Procedure 10 is NOT limited to one recirc, but I
said that the P&P is a bit ambiguous. I was tasked by the Chair to
develop interpretive language on the topic for the Chair's
Guidelines, but I have not gotten around to it.
This discussion is not captured in the minutes, except for the
mysterious line: "Roger will clarify multiple recirculation ballots
under Procedure 10."
Studying the P&P, I now find only one ambiguity. This is in Condition
5: "No new valid DISAPPROVE comments on new issues that are not
resolved to the satisfaction of the submitter from existing
DISAPPROVE voters." We are interpreting "new" in the normal way one
considers a ballot: "new" is "new in the final ballot". However, one
could interpret "new" as "received after conditional approval is
granted".
Roger
At 15:21 -0700 04/04/23, Grow, Bob wrote:
>Mike:
>
>I appreciate the forthright and easily understood report on 802.17/D3.2
>comment resolution. While I concur with your decision that the D3.2
>ballot resolution failed to meet the conditions of Procedure 10 for
>RevCom consideration, I do not believe you need another contitional
>approval motion.
>
>I find nothing in Procedure 10 that would require it. Per Procedure 10,
>the motion expires at the next plenary session, not at compeletion of a
>recirculation ballot. Only if your March motion was specific to D3.2,
>would you need to go forward with another motion. That certainly isn't
>the case for the below motion.
>
>--Bob Grow
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
>> Mike Takefman
>> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 11:00 AM
>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: [802SEC] EC Motion to Conditionally Approve
>> Forwarding of P802.17 to Revcom
>>
>>
>> Dear EC Members,
>>
>> In the preceding email, I detailed the results of our
>> last recirculation ballot and our plan moving forward.
>> I therefore make the following EC email ballot motion:
>>
>> Move to conditionally approve forwarding P802.17 to RevCom under
>> procedure 10 of the LMSC P&P.
>>
>> May I have a second?
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> mike
>>
>> ----------
>> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>>
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.