Hi Steve,
I’ll approve if you change the title as you suggested below and clarify what “end of session” means and fix the structure of the sentence. Do you mean the last 2 hour block of a session, the last day you meet,
something else? I don’t care how you clarify it or if you remove “end of” to allow approving liaisons in accordance with your meeting agenda for the session. I just don’t want to be dealing with a future disagreement later on whether the approval was legitimate
because people have different ideas on what it means.
For instance:
Approval in 802.19 requires a vote at the final 802.19 meeting of a session with a 75% approval rate. Or
Approval in 802.19 requires a vote with 75% approval taken during the announced meeting block for the topic.
The latter wording ties in with the notification in the second bullet and leaves you some flexibility on when these votes fall on the agenda rather than tying it to the end of the session. I think that’s better
for the long run but either is acceptable or something else as long as it doesn’t depend on people agreeing on what undefined words mean.
Regards,
Pat
From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qti.qualcomm.com]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 3:07 PM
To: Pat Thaler; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Email Ballot +++ Approval of 3GPP LAA Liaison Process
Pat,
Thanks for your comments. I will consider revising the document to R1 with the following on Slide 3, if you will change your vote from a No to a Yes, and it will not cause any other voter to change
from a Yes to a No. Below is the suggested text for Slide 3.
I agree that the title should be more specific and would change that to “3GPP LAA Liaison Approval Process.”
The conference calls would be announced on the email reflector. The other interested WG chairs can forward that to their reflector. I did not intend to notify on all email reflectors since not
actions would be taken on the calls.
Yes, there was no intention to draft liaisons between meetings. On the other hand, an individual could prepare a contribution with the material they think should go into a liaison and request
a call from the chair. Then those on the call could discus that contribution. But we would only draft official liaisons during sessions.
Please tell me what you think. If we can converge to text that would allow you to vote Yes, I can revise the document and post it on Mentor.
Thanks,
Steve
From: Pat Thaler [mailto:pthaler@broadcom.com]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 11:04 AM
To: Shellhammer, Steve; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Email Ballot +++ Approval of 3GPP LAA Liaison Process
Steve,
The title of the document is very broad “Liaison Approval Process” as is the process defined on slide 3– please make the title and the process more reflective of the scope in the abstract. For example “3GPP LAA Liaison Approval Process”
Also, the text is confusing on the status of working on contributions at a teleconference call.
·
The first bullet says Contributions are brought into 802.19 session but then a sub-bullet says that the chair can schedule conference calls between sessions to discuss contributions. Does that mean teleconferences are only to discuss contributions that
were brought into a session but not acted on in a session or is the intent that contributions can also be brought into an conference call? Please clarify.
·
The second bullet says that they chair will notify other WG chairs at the beginning of the session that 802.19 will be working on a liaison, but there is nothing about notifying WG chairs of the conference calls mentioned under the first bullet. Please
add that.
·
Third bullet – is it the intent to exclude drafting a liaison on conference calls?
·
“At the end of the session” - Why at the end of a session and what time counts as at the end of the session? – does 802.19 have a specific time window when it addresses motions during a session. Also, the way the text is drafted now, it could be read
as “When a liaison is approved at the end of a session, this rules apply” (which implies that the group’s normal rules apply if the liaison is approved at some other time) rather than “Liaisons can only be approved at the end of the session and this is the
rule that applies.” If you intend the latter, please reword and define what counts as the “end of the session”. I assume you didn’t mean the former. If you mean something else, revise the text so it says that.
Regards,
Pat
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 10:18 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Email Ballot +++ Approval of 3GPP LAA Liaison Process
Dear EC Members,
Paul has delegated the conduct of the EC electronic ballot on the following motion to me. To ensure this liaison letter is sent as soon as practical I'm announcing the possibility of an 'early close' to this ballot (see below).
The process document was reviewed twice in 802.19 this week and there were no changes requested during those reviews. It was suggested that the process be approved by the EC. Paul was in the room at the time and agreed that it was a good idea.
Regards,
Steve
Motion
======
Approve the 3GPP LAA liaison process on Slide 3 of the attached document (document: 19-14-0089-00-0000-Liaison-Approval-Process) for approval of liaisons from IEEE 802 to 3GPP TSG RAN on the topic of coexistence of Licensed Assisted Access (LAA) with IEEE 802
wireless systems
Move: Steve Shellhammer
Second: Bob Heile
Start of ballot: Friday January 16, 2015
Close of ballot: Monday January 26, 2015, 11:59PM AOE
Early close: As required in subclause 4.1.2 'Voting rules' of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Operations Manual, this is notice that, to ensure the release is provided in a timely manner, this ballot may close early once sufficient responses
are received to clearly decide a matter.
-----
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.