Re: [802SEC] +++EC email ballot+++ motion to delay release of 802.18 communication+++ends 3 OCT 2005+++final tally
Roger,
You are correct--if the EC motion passed the EC must be given a chance to
consider it instead of 'should have.' However, the results of the TAG
email ballot is 'new information' and I believe the EC should have a chance
to consider the new information and have the option to register disapproval
before releasing the communication automatically..
Regards,
--Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
To: <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 6:04 PM
Subject: 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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.