Re: [802SEC] Sponsor ballot authorization for P802.1Qaz
Hi Apurva -
Response ratio has to be >50%; the approval ratio then has to be >75% of
those voting Yes & No.
Regards,
Tony
On 21 September 2010 15:40, Mody, Apurva (US SSA) <
apurva.mody@baesystems.com> wrote:
> Hello Tony,
>
> I Approve.
>
> However, just one question, the response ratio for the ballot seems to be
> below 75%. Is that allowed? What is the correct required response ratio -
> 50% or 75%?
>
> Thanks
>
> Apurva
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On
> Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:36 AM
> To: 802-exec
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Sponsor ballot authorization for P802.1Qaz
>
> All -
>
> Paul has authorized me to run an email ballot on the following motion:
>
> "EC approves forwarding of P802.1Qaz to Sponsor ballot.
>
> Moved:Jeffree
> Second: Thaler"
>
> Closing date for the ballot will be Sunday 3rd October, or the date that
> all
> voting members of the EC have responded, whichever is earlier.
>
> I approve the motion.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
> On 21 September 2010 13:33, Tony Jeffree <tony@jeffree.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hi Paul -
> >
> > We have a pretty clean result for the latest P802.1Qaz recirculation and
> I
> > would like to run an EC email ballot on a motion to allow it to be
> forwarded
> > to Sponsor ballot. Pat will second. The recirc results are:
> >
> > We had no new disapprove votes and no changes to the document from the
> > recirculation.
> >
> >
> >
> > Approve: 27
> >
> > Disapprove: 1
> >
> > Approve %: 96%
> >
> >
> >
> > Abstain: 32
> >
> >
> >
> > Responding: 60
> >
> > Voters: 96
> >
> > Response %: 62%
> >
> >
> >
> > The disapprove voter is Anoop Ghanwani who has indicated that he is
> > satisfied with the resolution of all but one of his comments. The
> comment
> > on which he is maintaining his disapprove vote is:
> >
> >
> >
> > *Cl **38 **SC **38.5.4 **P **64 **L
> > # *99
> >
> > *Comment Type **TR*
> >
> > This clause needs to have an associated PFC Defense mechanism. The need
> for
> > this is
> >
> > covered in: az-ghanwani-pfc-defense-0909-v02.pdf.
> >
> > *SuggestedRemedy*
> >
> > Add a defense mechanism for PFC. The mechanism would be similar to that
> > specified for
> >
> > CN.
> >
> > REJECT. Group consensus has been that this is not a solution that DCB
> > wishes to persue.
> >
> > This has not changed from pervious ballots.
> >
> >
> >
> > The file mentioned in the comment is available at:
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2009/az-ghanwani-pfc-defense-0909-v02.pdf
> >
> >
> > The motion would be:
> >
> > "EC approves forwarding of P802.1Qaz to Sponsor ballot.
> >
> > Moved:Jeffree
> >
> > Second: Thaler"
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> >
>
> ----------
> 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.