| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Pat, I assume you are going to want the recording secretary, i.e. me, to send this. As I would be sending this as the IEEE 802 LMSC Recording Secretary, I would prefer a motion supporting that communication. However, I do not think it needs to be a liaison, and believe that the following would be sufficient Move that the IEEE 802 LMSC Recording Secretary send an informal communication to external groups, as designated by the IEEE 802 EC Chair, that communicates for each IEEE 802 Plenary Session PARs and Study Groups that were under consideration. John 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. |