Re: [802SEC] EC Motion to Conditionally Approve Forwarding of P802.17 to Revcom
Pat,
Mike did say there were "No new valid disapprove votes or comments on
new issues that were not resolved to the satisfaction of the
disapprove voter." So this would mean that Condition 5 is satisfied
(currently). So I agree that his conditional approval motion is still
valid.
On the other hand, we have the general question as to whether his
conditional approval would have been terminated if he had received a
valid, unresolveable Disapprove comment from an existing Disapprove
voter. Here (based on having my mind changed by the discussion last
November), I tend to disagree with your analysis. I think that his
conditional approval would still be alive while he recirculated that
Disapprove comment. If that recirc came up clean, he could say that
he finished with no "new" Disapprove comments.
Roger
At 18:17 -0600 04/04/23, pat_thaler@AGILENT.COM wrote:
>I believe that when we wrote "new" we meant new since the
>conditional approval was granted. The rationale is that the SEC
>should review any unresolved negatives before the draft is forwarded
>to the next level.
>
>In the specific case of .17, if I recall the summary correctly,
>there weren't any new valid disapprove comment issues on the
>recirculation so he could still go under the prior conditional
>approval.
>
>Pat
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
>Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 3:59 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: 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.
>
>----------
>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.