All,
I am having a lot of reservations of moving away from the 5 Criteria.
Simply put the 5 Criteria have brand value – people know what they
mean. It is something that I personally feel is ingrained in our
participants, and people outside of the IEEE have some perceived
knowledge of them as well.
I believe the last proposed “Co-existence” criteria text is in
EC-13-0009-00. James, please correct me if I am wrong. It reads -
*/14.3/**/C/**/o/**/ex/**/i/**/s/**/t/**/e/**/nc/**/e/*
Statetheplanforaddressingcoexistence.
a) WilltheWGcreateaCAdocumentaspartoftheWGballotingprocess?(yes/no)
b) Ifnot,explainwhytheCAdocumentisnot applicable.
The 5 Criteria are the basis for determining whether to forward a PAR or
not. The text above reads more as a requirement for a PAR that has
already been approved, not a criteria. Furthermore, what does a
proposed project have to co-exist with? I suspect that this is WG
specific. Therefore, I would argue that it should be left to individual
WGs to determine this requirement, and the specific WG can then make it
part of the specific WG process.
In its current wording, I have no clue how I would answer this from my
specific WG. Therefore, it would probably get a meaningless NA answer
that does nothing to assist the group in determining whether a PAR
should be approved. From my own WG perspective I would also argue that
if it could not co-exist then it would impact the broad market potential
of the project.
Therefore, in its current form, I would have to vote against this
proposal. Furthermore, I believe that we should really consider the
brand value of the 5C, and should seek to preserve it.
John
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.