Re: [802SEC] +++EC email ballot+++ motion to delay release of 802.18 communication+++ends 3 OCT 2005+++final tally
Pat,
Yes, I agree that what I said is not what you said. I was not
attempting to restate your entire point. My intent was simply to
agree that we should skip the second five-day review.
I would still like to understand, based on Paul's analysis, how the
current situation would differ if the motion had passed.
Roger
At 15:48 -0600 2005-10-10, <pat_thaler@agilent.com> wrote:
>Roger, that isn't what I said. The motion was only to delay release
>until Paul ruled. His ability and need to rule wasn't changed by
>whether the motion passed or failed. He has ruled that the
>conditions of the P&P for TAG vote weren't met.
>
>I agree with what he is doing as far as that goes. On the other
>hand, I think an additional 5 days of delay would be pushing things
>to far so I'd like him to rule that in the current somewhat upside
>down situation he will consider that the EC 5 day review has had
>plenty of time to run and doesn't need to be repeated after the TAG
>voting flaw is fixed.
>
>Regards,
>Pat
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:40 AM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC email ballot+++ motion to delay release
>of 802.18 communication+++ends 3 OCT 2005+++final tally
>
>Paul,
>
>I agree with Pat. The TAG communication can proceed unless a motion
>to block is made, in which case "release of the position statement
>will be withheld until the motion fails."
>
>The motion failed.
>
>How would we be proceeding differently if the motion had passed?
>
>Roger
>
>
>At 11:11 -0600 2005-10-10, Pat Thaler wrote:
>>Paul,
>>
>>Is there some way that we can consider the 5 day P&P period to have
>>already been allowed to run? While what you suggest meets the
>>"letter of the law," we have already seen the document. I don't
>>think that the fact that the validity of the vote in the TAG was
>>questioned and the vote had to be rerun raises any issues that need
>>a new review period. Perhaps we need a day to see the results of the
>>new ballot and then can move on.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Pat
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@ATT.NET]
>>Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 9:54 AM
>>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>>Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC email ballot+++ motion to delay release
>>of 802.18 communication+++ends 3 OCT 2005+++final tally
>>
>>Dear EC members,
>>
>>Given the failure of the motion, I occurs to me that I must clarify what
>>state the 802.18 TAG communication is in; it is pending final approval by
>>the TAG and the EC.
>>
>>My rationale is as follows. The motion to delay the release until the I
>>made a ruling failed. However there was ambiguoity in my mind as to whether
>>or not adequate TAG approval had been reached in the first place. Therefore
>>I requested the chair of the 802.18 TAG conduct an email ballot to resolve
>>the ambiguoity as to whether or not adequate approval from the TAG was
>>obtained for the communcation. That ballot closed Tuesday 4OCT. The TAG
>>email ballot must receive 75% approval of all TAG members in order to be
>>presented to the EC for review. If the TAG email ballot passed and after
>>Mike Lynch notifies the EC of the result it may proceed as per the P&P (i.e.
>>within 5 days of notice, or after a EC motion to block fails--see P&P
>>below).
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>--Paul Nikolich
>>
>>The 802 P&P regarding TAG communcations with governement bodies states:
>>
>>"Working Group or TAG Communications
>>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. "
>>
>>Upon my request the
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
>>To: <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
>>Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 5:36 PM
>>Subject: [802SEC] +++EC email ballot+++ motion to delay release of 802.18
>>communication+++ends 3 OCT 2005+++final tally
>>
>>
>>Dear EC members,
>>
>>The final tally on the below motion is 6APP/4DIS/0ABS/6DNV. Since the
>>motion did not receive a majority of the EC voting members (9) the motion
>>fails.
>>
>>Note that Mike Lynch has conducted an email ballot of the TAG on this matter
>>and will be publishing the result shortly to the EC reflector. Mike, when
>>you publish the result, please note that a majority of TAG members must vote
>>in the affirmative in order for the motion to pass.
>>
>>Regards,
>>--Paul
>>
>>
>>Vote categories: DIS DNV APP ABS
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> 01 Mat Sherman+ DIS
>> 02 Pat Thaler+ APP
>> 03 Buzz Rigsbee+ DIS
>> 04 Bob O'Hara DNV
>> 05 John Hawkins+ APP
>> 06 Tony Jeffree+ APP
>> 07 Bob Grow+ DIS
>> 08 Stuart Kerry DNV
>> 09 Bob Heile DNV
>> 10 Roger Marks+ DIS
>> 11 Mike Takefman DNV
>> 12 Mike Lynch DNV
>> 13 Steve Shellhammer+ APP
>> 14 Jerry Upton+ APP
>> 15 Ajay Rajkumar DNV
>> 16 Carl Stevenson+ APP
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------
>> TOTALS DIS DNV APP ABS
>> 4 6 6 0
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
>>To: <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
>>Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 11:16 AM
>>Subject: [802SEC] +++EC email ballot+++ motion to delay release of 802.18
>>communication+++ends 3 OCT 2005
>>
>>
>>Dear EC Memebers,
>>
>>The below EC motion has been made, recognized and seconded, hence I am
>>conducting this EC email ballot.
>>
>>Therefore, I move to delay release of the communication until Paul Nikolich
>>has ruled on whether the requirements of 14.2 for a TAG vote have been met.
>>Moved: Pat Thaler
>>Second: Bob Grow
>>
>>The ballot closes the sooner of 3 OCT 2005 or 24 hours after all EC members
>>cast a ballot.
>>
>>Mike Lynch--in parallel with this email ballot, I strongly encourage you to
>>immediately conduct an email ballot of the 802.18 TAG members to remove all
>>doubt as to whether or not the communication has received proper
>>consideration by the TAG and provide timely updates to the EC such that the
>>EC can observe the progress of the email ballot.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>--Paul Nikolich
>>
>
>----------
>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.