| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Pat, Do we really need EC approval for this since it is informal anyway? If a motion is required, my vote will for “A motion to acknowledge that the above communication is not a formal liaison and doesn’t require approval.” Regards, _Subir From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Pat Thaler We discussed during the EC teleconference whether posting a pointer to PARs on the IETF new-work reflector is a liaison statement which requires a motion or not. Some felt strongly that it does and others equally strongly that it doesn’t.
We have a similar request from another standards body (was it ITU?). The form of email would be something like: The following Project Authorization Requests are under consideration for the <month> <year> IEEE 802 Plenary: A list of <designation>-<title> The PARs can be found at
http://ieee802.org/PARs.shtml. Any comments on a proposed PAR should be sent to the Working Group chair identified in the PAR to be received by <date of Tuesday of the plenary> 1700 <time zone of meeting>. At this point, I can see two courses of action – A motion to give blanket approval to a regular liaison mailing of the information above to IETF (and possibly include the other body) Or A motion to acknowledge that the above communication is not a formal liaison and doesn’t require approval. I’d like input on which would be preferred. Pat ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
|