Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding 802.20 to RevComm
Tony,
I believe that my criticism was for a perceived lack of 'inclusiveness and
transparency', not accuracy.
But I am not opposed to accuracy :-)
In any event, it seems that my memory did not fail me.
Thanks,
Phillip Barber
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 2:15 AM
To: Phillip Barber
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding
802.20 to RevComm
Phillip -
My observation wasn't about relevance; it was about accuracy and
transparency. If you are criticizing someone else on the basis of
(lack of) accuracy and transparency, which it seemed to me that you
were, then it behoves you to be no less accurate and transparent than
you considered that they were being, which it seemed to me that you weren't.
Regards,
Tony
At 06:55 09/05/2008, Phillip Barber wrote:
>Tony,
>
>Actually, on further review, your change of vote as part of the Recirc2 is
>irrelevant.
>
>Your comment 38 in Recirc1, a technical comment tied to your Recirc1
>disapprove vote, covering the matter addressed by Max, was part of the
>Recirc2 recirculation. This comment deals with the same matter, in general,
>that Max identifies in his comment. The resolution of this comment can be
>used as the basis for Max's comment. The fact that you changed your vote as
>part of Recirc2 does not remove your comment 38 from the Recirc2 ballot
>package, and comments in Recirc2 can be made based on the resolution of
your
>comment 38 from Recirc1.
>
>In any event, your comment 38 references Geoff Thompson's comment 451, and
>Geoff is still a disapprove voter, so Max's comment can be equally tagged
to
>Geoff's comment.
>
>Thanks,
>Phillip Barber
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
>Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 12:01 AM
>To: Phillip Barber
>Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding
>802.20 to RevComm
>
>Philip -
>
>If you are going to use my votes and comments (or anyone else's for
>that matter) to bolster your argument, then you will need to be
>accurate. I have no outstanding disapprove comments - my vote on the
>most recent recirculation ballot was "approve".
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>At 05:30 09/05/2008, Phillip Barber wrote:
> >While I do not disagree that text in that section may not have changed
> >during the most recent recirculation, I can say that at least outstanding
> >disapprove comments by Tony Jeffree are also directed to this same
general
> >matter. So Max's comment is open and relevant to outstanding disapprove
> >comments. Disallowing this comment, and especially converting Max's vote
to
> >'Abstain' from 'Disapprove' is improper and irregular.
>
>----------
>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.