Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding 802.20 to RevComm
Phil,
To clarify, the "Out of scope" comments were reviewed in all dimensions.
The balloting process is designed to allow for convergence by progressively narrowing what is in scope of a recirculation as the issues are closed (or have not been opened). The comment by Mr. Riegel that you are challenging relates to the use of PPP. It is not the same issue and not the same concern as addressed by the other comments. I do not believe that dealing "with the same matter, in general" (whatever that may mean precisely) gets the comment back into scope. (I would also note in passing that a similar reference to PPP is used in 802.16, a group in which you hold a task Group chair position).
The situation with the other comments you are referring to is similar, for instance the comment by Mr. Cooklev asks for a change in the PAR scope and then in the document on a subject matter that had NEVER before been on the table.
Also please be aware that this in NOT the Revcom Package. The final Revcom package will be amended after Comment resolution based on following the Revcom checklist.
Best regards,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Phillip Barber
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 1:55 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: FW: [802SEC] UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding 802.20 to RevComm
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.