Re: [802SEC] Comment request on draft 100 Gb/s Optical Ethernet
Hi Geoff,
Thank you for that clarification and expansion upon the role of the
Sponsor Ballot.
To your latter point, I was trying to emphasize inclusion as early as
possible, not suggest that the process is not open later on.
Regards,
Dan
On 11/2/11 11:45 AM, "Geoff Thompson" <thompson@ieee.org> wrote:
>Dan-
>
>I must strongly disagree that once the PAR is approved that it is "too
>late for participants who might see an industry need to add objectives"
>
>IF you were to reject a comment for a DISAPPROVE comment in Sponsor
>Ballot that asked for a new feature or requirement solely on the basis
>that the feature was not included in the objectives THEN you would never
>make it through REVCOM and Standards Board approval.
>
>In the view of the IEEE-SA, the Sponsor Balloting Group is THE consensus
>group.
>The Working Group and its voting procedures are all nothing more than an
>orderly prelude to Sponsor Ballot.
>- The PAR is not a consensus document in the eyes of the SA
>(appropriately so, in some sponsors they have been known to be submitted
>solely on the action of one person and SA procedures allow and support
>that.)
>- The OBJECTIVEs process is a process that is local to 802.3 and not
>even universal across 802, much less the rest of the SA. The procedures
>and practices of 802.3 are subordinate to those of 802 and the SA.
>Should they be exerted to restrict something that is allowed by the
>downstream procedure of the SA, the action could be overturned on
>appeal. To have an appeal at a late stage in the process that would
>result in a redo of all or part of the Sponsor Ballot process would play
>havoc with 802.3's (famous) ability to work to schedule.
>
>802.3 has a very strong history of working VERY hard to have our
>procedures refined such that we slide through the SA balloting and
>approval process on a bulletproof basis. I would hate to see that
>tradition compromised. I understand your point that earlier
>participation is better for all. Be that as it may, your desire to move
>input upstream does not change the rules for the process that come from
>outside 802.3.
>
>Best regards,
>Geoff Thompson
>
>On 211//11 10:56 AM, Daniel Dove wrote:
>> Resending. Apologies if this is a duplicate.
>>
>> From: Daniel Dove<ddove@apm.com>
>> Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 08:42:57 -0700
>> To:<STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Comment request on draft 100 Gb/s Optical
>>Ethernet
>>
>> Hello Jon,
>>
>> Your question is a good one. The goal of the PR is to inform the
>>industry of
>> the activity underway in the SG and the goals being developed within the
>> effort.
>>
>> Since the SG is developing objectives, stating the general direction and
>> getting industry awareness of this activity is important and timely.
>>Once we
>> have objectives, the task force will be focused on how to achieve them.
>>At
>> that point, it will be too late for participants who might see an
>>industry
>> need to add objectives.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jon Rosdahl
>> Sent: 01 November 2011 13:42
>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Comment request on draft 100 Gb/s Optical Ethernet
>> Study Group press release
>>
>> Hello all,
>> I would agree with Geoff's and Bob's edit suggestions.
>> I do have a question though....if a SG purpose is to write a PAR, why
>>does
>> this PR seem to indicate that the SG will be developing the technology?
>> Would this not be a better press release when the task force is created?
>> Curious,
>> Jon
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Geoff Thompson"<thompson@ieee.org>
>> To:<STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 5:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Comment request on draft 100 Gb/s Optical Ethernet
>> Study Group press release
>>
>>
>>
>>> David/Dan-
>>>
>>> Enclosed is a marked up version of the PDF with my comments.
>>>
>>> Geoff
>>>
>>> On 2610//11 1:25 AM, Law, David wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear EC members,
>>>>
>>>> I have arranged for the development of the attached press release to
>>>> announce the formation of the IEEE 802.3 Next Generation 100 Gb/s
>>>>Optical
>>>> Ethernet Study Group that was chartered at the last plenary. Since the
>>>> development of this press release was at the request of the Study
>>>>Group
>>>> Chair and myself I'm seeking EC approval.
>>>>
>>>> I will seek this approval at the opening IEEE 802 EC plenary on Monday
>>>> 7th November and I'm going to request that this be placed on the
>>>>consent
>>>> agenda. Based on this I would like to request comments on the attached
>>>> draft.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> 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.