Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Closing agendas posted and attached

Mike
That may be the case, but I am against the EC being in the habit of approving documents for which they have not had a realistic time to review. I think that sets a bad precedence.
Plus, most of these can go under 5 day review and the net effect is that they are published soon after the meeting anyway. Anything that isn't 5 day review can be reviewed in the EC meeting or sent for 10 day ballot.
All but the most pressing items can wait 10 days, the rest we can cover in the closing EC meeting. 

Anyway, that is my opinion.

James Gilb

On 03/20/2012 05:55 PM, MJLynch@mjlallc.com wrote:

James,

I just got to this on my list of 700 plus emails.

It would be virtually impossible for the RR-TAG to submit material to the EC 48 hours in advance. That would be Wednesday afternoon and .11 and .15 (plus others) often can't bring their material to the RR-TAG until late on Thursday. Maybe final approval of all those documents, and the related debates, should be part of the EC closing meeting? Then those on the EC can be fully involved.

Regards,

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: James Gilb [mailto:jpgilb@gmail.com] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 12:05 PM
To: MJLynch@mjlallc.com
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Closing agendas posted and attached

Mike

You had asked, but if one person objects, it needs to be removed from the consent agenda.  I objected because the EC was notified only a few hours before the meeting of these documents and I did not have time to review them in time.

I personally would like at least 48 hours for any document on the consent agenda as Thursday is a busy day for me.

James Gilb

On 03/16/2012 03:35 PM, MJLynch@mjlallc.com wrote:

Hi James,

I had asked for 802.18 docs 0028, 0031, 0032 and 0033 to be on the consent agenda. The first three are simply continuing business between 802.16 and ITU-R WP5D. Indeed those three only concern 802.16. Doc .18-12-0033 is a further 802 input opposing Progeny's operation in the 902 - 928 MHz frequency band. We have been opposing Progeny in that band going back to the time prior to my becoming the 802.18 chair in 2005. There wouldn't seem to be anything controversial about any of this. Can they please be moved to the consent agenda?

Thanks.

Regards,

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 5:18 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] Closing agendas posted and attached

All

Here it is, usual formats.

Lisa and Dawn, please print this version.

James Gilb

----------
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.