| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear Paul and EC members, 802.11 hopes to bring the following for approval by the EC: 1.
Next Generation Positioning 1st Study Group extension (consent agenda) 2.
Next Generation 60 GHz 2nd Study Group extension
a.
Their PAR is up for approval. This approval to cover the case that NesCom doesn’t approve the PAR and more work and resubmission
is required. 3.
Next Generation 60 GHz PAR to NesCom
a.
This has been pre-circulated
b.
It is on the NesCom agenda, and will be pulled if the EC does not approve it. 4.
P802.11REVmc (revision) to Sponsor Ballot
a.
Latest ballot completed recently with 94% approval.
b.
The ballot group formation has terminated with >200 members and acceptable balance. 5.
No liaisons are expected directly from 802.11.
a.
But this is subject to change
b.
The 802.11 regulatory standing committee DSRC tiger team may produce a report to the FCC, but I am anticipating approval
of a liaison to the FCC in the EC through 802.18. 6.
Jon may bring a motion to approve the 802 funding commemorative badge-holders for all 802 attendees at the July session,
at which 802.11 are celebrating their 25th Anniversary. 7.
This is for discussion in the EC, and a motion might be the right context to have this disussion:
a.
Motion: “Delegate resolution of the P802.11REVmc sponsor ballot comments to the 802.11 WG chair.”
b.
As far as I read the rules (and I may have missed something specific), the sponsor is responsible for resolving comments
on sponsor ballots.
c.
802 has (as far as I’m aware) handled this by implicitly authorizing the working group and the working group implicitly
authorizing the TG/TF to resolve comments.
i. Certainly the automated systems embed the concept that the project’s
chair gets to interact with MyBallot, which fits this model.
ii. But in the new world of trying to create and document explicit
authorization, I think this is not (IMHO) good enough, unless I’ve missed the rules that say this is the only way to do it.
d.
By delegating to the chair of the WG, the chair can determine the most appropriate forum to resolve the comments, which
would typically be the TG/TF that created the draft in the first place. Best Regards, Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office) ---------------------------------------------- From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich Dear EC Members, If you haven't already provided me the below information, please do so by COB Friday. Please let me know what EC approvals you expect to be requesting at the upcoming plenary session: a) establishment of new Study Groups, SG renewals and other pre-PAR activities b) drafts to Sponsor Ballot c) drafts to RevCom d) maintenance PARs e) press releases, liaison letters, regulatory communications, etc. f) etc.... The information will help JohnD and me prepare the closing agenda and give your fellow EC members notice of what decisions they are expected to make at the
closing EC meeting. Thank you. Regards, --Paul ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv. |