Geoff,
In making my initial response to James the EC reflector was included. In further transmissions today that included the reflector 5 or 6 addresses "weren't available". Would it be better to stop all business requiring EC reponse until someone (and yes, I have followed Paul's instructions on who to contact) has "fixed" the reflector? In the case of this document the only reason that 802 had a chance to file timely reply comments was that the FCC changed the filing date. Based on the short response time for items such as this one rather than relying on the current reflector then maybe everything should be done in F2F meetings and EC conference calls to vote on the contribution(s).
I was simply trying to make certain that those who needed to vote on this document had the opportunity to do so. In this case waiting for someone to fix the reflector could have meant that 802 wouldn't file reply comments. That would have met our rules but not the needs of the concerned 802 WGs. Which is more important? Following the rules when the relector is not reliable or filing the relevant comments?
Best regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson<thompson@ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:55
To: Michael Lynch<MJLynch@mjlallc.com>
Cc: James P. K. Gilb<gilb@ieee.org>; John_DAmbrosia@dell.com<John_DAmbrosia@dell.com>; Rosdahl, Jon<jrosdahl@ieee.org>; Nikolich, Paul<p.nikolich@ieee.org>; Thaler, Pat<pthaler@broadcom.com>; clint.chaplin@gmail.com<clint.chaplin@gmail.com>; tony@jeffree.co.uk<tony@jeffree.co.uk>; David_Law@ieee.org<David_Law@ieee.org>; bkraemer@ieee.org<bkraemer@ieee.org>; bheile@ieee.org<bheile@ieee.org>; subirdas21@gmail.com<subirdas21@gmail.com>; apurva.mody@baesystems.com<apurva.mody@baesystems.com>; Lynch, Michael<freqmgr@ieee.org>; Marks, Roger B.<r.b.marks@ieee.org>; shellhammer@ieee.org<shellhammer@ieee.org>; maximilian.riegel@nsn.com<maximilian.riegel@nsn.com>; Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee<BRigsBieee@comcast.net>; Canchi, Radhakrishna<Radhakrishna.Canchi@kyocera.com>; John Lemon<jlemon@ieee.org>; Paul Nikolich (paul.nikolich@ATT.NET)<paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>; 802 EC<stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Subject: Re: +++ 10 Day EC Ballot - Reply Comments to the FCC's Incentive Auction Proposal - Docket No. 12-268 +++
Mike
On 63//13 4:21 AM, Michael Lynch wrote:
In regard to your 2) I had to consider that the EC reflector recently had not been functioning correctly. Indeed Paul earlier had me make a contact in order to "fix" the relector. There was no apparent way to fix it so by using the relector there would have been the risk that this document would not have ever been seen by the EC in time to allow the required time for the ballot. Would you have preferred that 802's view was not submitted? Since Paul had previously told me to use the private list in order to distribute documents to the EC using it seemed the only way to make certain that this document also reached the EC.
I think the point that you seem to be missing is that even if the EC
reflector seems to be non-functional, when you send a ballot to a
private list you also need to send it to the reflector for the following
reasons:
- It is the rule. don't follow the rule and you are appeal bait
- It files it to the reflector archive (albeit perhaps slowly. If
we have proof of loss rather than delay of mail then we need a different
reflector provider)
- It provides a copy to those observers of the EC reflector who are
fully entitled to be fully informed about what is going on.
In summary, you may use direct addressing as a supplement to the EC
reflector to speed up delivery
You may not use it as a substitute.
Best regards,
Geoff
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.