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

Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process



Roger is, of course, correct.

However, we should modify the relevant section(s) of the P&P to avoid the
use of the term "position statements," as that term has special meaning to
the IEEE and IEEE-SA and should be avoided.

Carl
 

> -----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: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 3:02 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
> 
> A five-day review under Procedure 14.2 should include a 
> report of the WG or TAG voting results, since the procedure 
> specifies a minimum:
> 
> Procedure 14.2: Working Group or TAG communications with 
> government bodies shall not be released without prior 
> approval by a 75% majority of the Working Group or TAG. Such 
> communications may proceed unless blocked by an EC vote. For 
> position statements not presented for review in an EC 
> meeting, EC members shall have a review period of at least 
> five days; if, during that time, a motion to block it is 
> made, release of the position statement will be withheld 
> until the motion  fails. 
> 
> Roger
> 
> 
> >I will let Mike answer definitively for himself, but in the 
> past, this has just been the 5 day EC pre-filing review and 
> the doc would go as a .18 filing.
> >(if nobody makes a motion to block filing within the 5 day 
> window, Mike 
> >can file it as a .18 document, per the P&P)
> > 
> >Regards,
> >Carl
> > 
> >
> >
> >From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> >[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of 
> Shellhammer, 
> >Stephen J
> >Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:17 PM
> >To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
> >
> >Mike,
> > 
> >            Is your email intended to initiate an EC vote on 
> this 802.18 document?  If so would it then become an 802 
> document versus an 802.18 document?
> > 
> >Regards,
> >Steve
> >_________________
> >Steve Shellhammer
> >Intel Corporation
> >(858) 391-4570
> >
> >From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> >[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Michael 
> >Lynch
> >Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 1:28 PM
> >To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >Subject: [802SEC] Five day approval process
> > 
> >Dear EC members,
> >Please find enclosed 802.18's comments in response to the 
> Canadian UWB consultation. The comment period closes 6 May. 
> During our 18 March closing EC meeting I indicated that 
> 802.18 would work on a response to the Canadian consultation 
> by conference calls and correspondence. This document is the 
> result of that effort.
> >I would like to be able to forward this to Industry Canada on 2 May.
> >Regards,
> >Mike
> >+1 972 684 7518 (ESN 444 7518) Voice
> >+1 972 684 3774 (ESN 444 3775) FAX
> >+1 972 814 4901 (ESN 450 9401) Mobile
> ><<802.18-05.0017-02-0000_RR-TAG_Draft_IC_Comments.doc>>
> 
> ----------
> 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.