Bob,
I approve.
Steve
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Bob Heile
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 6:15 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] +++ECM: motion to approve the 802.15.3 Revision CSD
Hi all-
It appears we have a loose end regarding the 802.15.3 Revision CSD. Specifically:
- After the closing plenary, it was noticed that the motion to forward the PAR didn't include approving the CSD.
- Both the PAR and CSD were circulated to the EC reflector more than 30 days in advance of the July Session.
- There were some comments and responses on the PAR according to the PAR process, but no comments were received on the CSD.
- Consequently, we believe that the CSD is non-controversial (a copy is attached).
- Since the review occurred smoothly, but the motion was incomplete, this motion is being made to bring us into conformance with our process.
To that end:
Move that the IEEE 802EC LMSC approve the 802.15.3 Revision CSD DCN 15-15-0332-00-0000.
Moved by Bob Heile
Seconded by Pat Thaler
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 this ballot may close early once sufficient responses are received to clearly decide a matter. Sufficient responses
to clearly decide this matter will be based on the required majority for a motion under subclause 7.1.1 'Actions requiring approval by a majority vote' item (h), 'Other motions brought to the floor by members (when deemed in order by the Sponsor Chair)' of
the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Policies and Procedures.
Regards
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:45 AM
To: James P. K. Gilb; Pat (Patricia) Thaler;
p.nikolich@ieee.org
Cc: John_DAmbrosia@DELL.com;
bheile@ieee.org
Subject: BobH: please craft and conduct an EC email ballot motion to approve the 802.15.3 Revision CSD
All,
It is clear to me a 10 day EC email ballot (with early close provision)
to approve the 802.15.3 Revision CSD is in order at this time.
Bob and Pat, please craft a motion. I assume Bob will be mover, Pat
will be seconder, and I'll delegate the conduct of the EC email ballot
to Bob.
Regards,
--Paul
------ Original Message ------
From: "James P. K. Gilb" <gilb@ieee.org>
To: "Pat (Patricia) Thaler" <pthaler@broadcom.com>;
"p.nikolich@ieee.org" <p.nikolich@ieee.org>
Cc: "John_DAmbrosia@DELL.com" <John_DAmbrosia@dell.com>;
"bheile@ieee.org" <bheile@ieee.org>
Sent: 7/22/2015 12:04:50 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Approved CSD Document Numbers
>Paul
>
>I concur with John and Pat that 2 is the correct path at this point.
>
>BTW: I went through the OM and P&P closely and I could not find any
>rule that requires a CSD to be approved during a plenary closing
>meeting. PAR approval for "significant new work" has to happen after 30
>day notice prior to plenary opening and after the Wednesday response
>deadline.
>
>The closest thing is in 10.3, first paragraph, which says "... PARs for
>significant new work ... shall pass through the following process
>during the IEEE 802 LMSC plenary session week in which Sponsor approval
>is sought:" which implies that these PARs are only approved during the
>plenary session week. Note that this only says PARs, but our practice
>is that the review and comments apply to both the PAR and the CSD.
>
>There are some other issues with the Clause 10. If we get approval from
>AudCom for our WG P&P, then I will bring up changes for November. We
>can discuss if we want PAR approval to be held only during the EC
>closing.
>
>The approval at the closing is also hinted at by the following text in
>our currently approved OM:
>
>In 10.2 (third paragraph):
>"At the discretion of the Sponsor Chair, PARs may be submitted in
>parallel to NesCom when the Sponsor Closing meeting date allows the PAR
>to be removed from consideration prior to NesCom recommendation to the
>Standards Board." (Implies that PAR approval occurs at the "Sponsor
>Closing meeting".
>
>10.2 (end of fourth paragraph):
>"... may be placed on the Sponsor agenda if delivered to Sponsor
>members 48 hours in advance." (For 48 rule approvals, implies that
>these PARs have to be approved at a Sponsor meeting, which would
>include conference calls now, rather than by email ballot. However, I
>believe that we have excluded PAR approval from conference calls in the
>Chair's guidelines)"
>
>In 10.2 (last paragraph):
>"Sponsor approval of changes to the CSD statement after its initial
>approval may occur either at plenary sessions or by electronic ballot,
>as described in 4.1.2." (hinting that initial CSD approval is somehow
>restrained in when it can be done).
>
>In 10.3 (last paragraph)
>"It will be assumed that insufficient coordination and/or inter-WG
>consideration had occurred prior to the submission of the PAR if this
>deadline is not met, and the proposed PAR will not be considered by the
>Sponsor at the closing Sponsor meeting." (here, it implies that the
>PARs are considered only during the closing Sponsor meeting).
>
>James Gilb
>
>On 07/22/2015 08:01 AM, Pat (Patricia) Thaler wrote:
>>Paul,
>>
>>John and I agree that option 2 is a reasonable path forward:
>>
>>2. Do an EC email ballot to approve the CSD,
>>
>>The ball is in your court. Please give us a ruling. If you agree with
>>us, I'd suggest that Bob, John and I should agree on text for the
>>motion and then Bob conducts the ballot.
>>
>>Pat
>>
>>From: John_DAmbrosia@DELL.com [mailto:John_DAmbrosia@DELL.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 6:38 AM
>>To: Pat (Patricia) Thaler; bheile@ieee.org;
gilb@ieee.org
>>Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org
>>Subject: RE: [802SEC] Approved CSD Document Numbers
>>
>>Pat
>>Thanks for this review.
>>
>>I am uncomfortable with setting up precedence with Option #1.
>>I support Option #2, as long as there is nothing in rules that
>>prevents it.
>>
>>John
>>
>>From: Pat (Patricia) Thaler [mailto:pthaler@broadcom.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:36 AM
>>To: DAmbrosia, John; bheile@ieee.org<mailto:bheile@ieee.org>;
>>gilb@ieee.org<mailto:gilb@ieee.org>
>>Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org<mailto:p.nikolich@ieee.org>
>>Subject: RE: [802SEC] Approved CSD Document Numbers
>>
>>We all erred in not noticing that the motion was incorrect according
>>to our rules. Excerpt from our OM 10.2
>>The CSD statement shall be reviewed and approved by the WG and the
>>Sponsor as part of the
>>approval process for the following:
>>* Forwarding the PAR to NesCom ....
>>
>>It should have been a motion to approve the CSD and to forward the PAR
>>to NesCom:
>>E.g.: The IEEE 802EC LMSC approves the 802.15.3 Revision CSD and
>>forwards the 802.15.3 Revision PAR (DCN: 15-15-0324-00 modified with a
>>YES answer to question 6.1band with no change to the original title)
>>to NesCom
>>
>>For us to start a project (other than "ordinary items" PARs such as
>>corrigenda or revision roll-ups), LMSC needs to approve the CSD. That
>>is what our rules require. It doesn't matter whether there were
>>comments on the PAR or not.
>>
>>So how do we best fix it now?
>>
>>1. Treat it has the if the PAR motion implicitly approved the CSD,
>>
>>2. Do an EC email ballot to approve the CSD,
>>
>>3. Declare the motion that we passed was invalid according to our
>>rules and do a new correct motion through an EC email ballot.
>>
>>4. Declare the motion invalid, remove the PAR from the NexCom agenda
>>and follow OM 10 Procedure for PARs in November.
>>
>>I'd like to do 1, but I'm not comfortable that it is procedurally
>>correct enough.
>>
>>I can't find anything in the OM that requires that the vote take place
>>at the closing plenary. We did follow the review procedure correctly.
>>Only the form of the motion was incorrect. Therefore, I recommend that
>>we use option 2 or 3.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Pat
>>
>>From: John_DAmbrosia@DELL.com<mailto:John_DAmbrosia@DELL.com>
>>[mailto:John_DAmbrosia@DELL.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:01 AM
>>To: bheile@ieee.org<mailto:bheile@ieee.org>;
>>gilb@ieee.org<mailto:gilb@ieee.org>
>>Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org<mailto:p.nikolich@ieee.org>; Pat (Patricia)
>>Thaler
>>Subject: RE: [802SEC] Approved CSD Document Numbers
>>
>>Bob / James,
>>Guys - I'm sorry but not getting the point here - there was no formal
>>approval by the EC of the CSD from any motions I see here. What motion
>>formally has the EC approving the CSD?
>>
>>John
>>
>>From: Bob Heile [mailto:bheile@ieee.org]
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 2:30 AM
>>To: DAmbrosia, John; gilb@ieee.org<mailto:gilb@ieee.org>;
>>bheile@ieee.org<mailto:bheile@ieee.org>
>>Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org<mailto:p.nikolich@ieee.org>;
>>pthaler@broadcom.com<mailto:pthaler@broadcom.com>
>>Subject: RE: [802SEC] Approved CSD Document Numbers
>>
>>John
>>
>>There was no mention since we did not receive any comments.and we do
>>not forward the CSD to NesCom
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>
>>At 08:07 PM 7/21/2015 -0500,
>>John_DAmbrosia@DELL.com<mailto:John_DAmbrosia@DELL.com> wrote:
>>James,
>>
>>The 15.3 CSD was not approved, please see motions below. I have not
>>done these minutes yet so the motion # is not in any of them. While
>>the agenda item was
>>
>>5.044
>>
>>ME
>>
>>IEEE 802.15.3 Revision PAR / CSD to NesCom
>>
>>Heile
>>
>>There is no mention of CSD in Bobs slides.
>>The motions were -
>>
>>* Motion #
>>
>>The 802.15 WG requests 802EC approval to forward the 802.15.3 Revision
>>PAR (DCN: 15-15-0324-00 modified with a YES answer to question 6.1b)
>>to NesCom
>>
>>Moved
>>
>>Heile
>>
>>Second
>>
>>Chaplin
>>
>>Results
>>
>>
>>
>>Motion
>>
>>
>>
>>Reference
>>
>>Agenda Item #5.044
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>* Motion #
>>
>>Move to amend Motion # to
>>
>>The 802.15 WG requests 802EC approval to forward the 802.15.3 Revision
>>PAR (DCN: 15-15-0324-00 modified with a YES answer to question 6.1band
>>with no change to the original title) to NesCom
>>
>>Moved
>>
>>Heile
>>
>>Second
>>
>>Rosdahl
>>
>>Results
>>
>>Motion approved by unanimous consent
>>
>>Motion
>>
>>
>>
>>Reference
>>
>>Agenda Item #5.044
>>
>>
>>
>>* Motion # (amended)
>>
>>The 802.15 WG requests 802EC approval to forward the 802.15.3 Revision
>>PAR (DCN: 15-15-0324-00 modified with a YES answer to question 6.1band
>>with no change to the original title) to NesCom
>>
>>Moved
>>
>>Heile
>>
>>Second
>>
>>Chaplin
>>
>>Results
>>
>>Motion approved by unanimous consent
>>
>>Motion
>>
>>
>>
>>Reference
>>
>>Agenda Item #5.044
>>
>>
>>
>>Bob was the CSD approved previously? Can you point me to it? James if
>>it were approved earlier, perhaps we make the exception and put It up
>>but the rules did say something like from this point on - J
>>
>>
>>
>>JD
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: James Gilb [mailto:jpgilb@gmail.com] On Behalf Of James P. K.
>>Gilb
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 8:17 PM
>>To: DAmbrosia, John; bheile@ieee.org<mailto:bheile@ieee.org>
>>Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org<mailto:p.nikolich@ieee.org>;
>>pthaler@broadcom.com<mailto:pthaler@broadcom.com>
>>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Approved CSD Document Numbers
>>
>>John
>>
>>15.3 should have used the CSD as it was approved after we changed the
>>process.
>>
>>James Gilb
>>
>>On 07/21/2015 02:06 PM,
>>John_DAmbrosia@DELL.com<mailto:John_DAmbrosia@DELL.com> wrote:
>>>Bob -
>>>
>>>* The rules are specific to CSD so I did not add any links to
>>>approved 5C.
>>>
>>>* In regards to the 15.3 revision - there was no approval of the CSD.
>>>The updated guidelines state - CSDs approved after< date of approval
>>>of this guideline> shall be stored in the IEEE 802 Executive
>>>Committee Documents repository in a group for approved CSD files:
>>>ACSD.
>>>
>>>Pat / James - I believe I have done what the new rules state I am to
>>>do. Please confirm. If we are going to start making exceptions, then
>>>I believe the rules need to be modified at the next meeting to cover
>>>these scenarios.
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>
>>>From: Bob Heile [mailto:bheile@ieee.org]
>>>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 6:02 PM
>>>To: DAmbrosia, John
>>>Cc: bheile@ieee.org<mailto:bheile@ieee.org>;
>>>p.nikolich@ieee.org<mailto:p.nikolich@ieee.org>;
>>>pthaler@broadcom.com<mailto:pthaler@broadcom.com>
>>>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Approved CSD Document Numbers
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>There was a CSD for the 15.3 revision since it followed the 30 day
>>>review process given the 64bit to 48bit MAC address conversion. And
>>>there is an undated 5c for 15.9 tracking the modification PAR. Do you
>>>want those as well?
>>>
>>>Bob
>>>
>>>
>>>At 03:44 PM 7/21/2015 -0500, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>All,
>>>
>>>All approved CSDs have been entered into Mentor. Below is the project
>>># with respective link
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>802E:
>>>https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/15/ec-15-0066-00-ACSD-802e.docx
>>>
>>>802-11az:
>>>https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/15/ec-15-0067-00-ACSD-802-11az.docx
>>>
>>>802-3bw :
>>>https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/15/ec-15-0068-00-ACSD-802-3bw.pdf
>>>
>>>802-3bq:
>>>https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/15/ec-15-0069-00-ACSD-802-3bq.pdf
>>>
>>>802-1Xck:
>>>https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/15/ec-15-0070-00-ACSD-802-1xck.docx
>>>
>>>802-1Xcp:https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/15/ec-15-0071-00-ACSD-802-
>>>1qcp.docx
>>>
>>>802-1Qcn:https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/15/ec-15-0072-00-ACSD-802-
>>>1qcn.pdf
>>>
>>>802-1CM:
>>>https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/15/ec-15-0073-00-ACSD-802-1cm.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Please note per the updated Chairs Guidelines
>>>
>>>The latest revision of an uploaded CSD is the official CSD for a
>>>project to be used for the CSD review as required by 10.2 of the LMSC
>>>OM. A link to it shall be provided in ballots so that voters can
>>>review whether a project is consistent with the CSD.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>At this point the webpage has not been updated. I will have this
>>>completed by end of week.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>John DAmbrosia
>>>
>>>Recording Secretary, IEEE 802 LMSC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>>>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>>>
>>>Bob Heile, Ph.D
>>>
>>>Director of Standards, Wi-SUN Alliance Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working
>>>Group on Wireless Specialty Networks Chair IEEE 2030.5 Working Group
>>>for Smart Energy Profile 2 Co-Chair IEEE P2030 Task Force 3 on
>>>Smartgrid Communications
>>>
>>>11 Robert Toner Blvd, Suite 5-301
>>>North Attleboro, MA 02763 USA
>>>Mobile: +1-781-929-4832
>>>email: bheile@ieee.org<mailto:bheile@ieee.org>
>>>
>>
>>Bob Heile, Ph.D
>>
>>Director of Standards, Wi-SUN Alliance
>>Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Specialty Networks
>>Chair IEEE 2030.5 Working Group for Smart Energy Profile 2
>>Co-Chair IEEE P2030 Task Force 3 on Smartgrid Communications
>>
>>11 Robert Toner Blvd, Suite 5-301
>>North Attleboro, MA 02763 USA
>>Mobile: +1-781-929-4832
>>email: bheile@ieee.org<mailto:bheile@ieee.org>
>>
Bob Heile, Ph.D
Director of Standards, Wi-SUN Alliance
Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Specialty Networks
Chair IEEE 2030.5 Working Group for Smart Energy Profile 2
Co-Chair IEEE P2030 Task Force 3 on Smartgrid Communications
11 Robert Toner Blvd, Suite 5-301
North Attleboro, MA 02763 USA
Mobile: +1-781-929-4832
email: bheile@ieee.org
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.