Re: [802SEC] Q&A on the operation of the 802.11ax dominance remedy

[Adrian Stephens <adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org>]

Hello Pat,

I don't think this is a big issue.   We generally resolve comments in the WG without much,  if any,
reference to whether a comment was marked "must be satisfied" or not.    This is consistent with
the direction that the SASB have been moving in.

Best Regards,

Adrian Stephens
IEEE 802.11 Working Group Chair
mailto: adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org
Phone: +1 (971) 203-2032
Skype: adrian_stephens

On 29/11/2016 18:16, Pat Thaler wrote:

There is another question that applies to letter ballots. 

How would the unsatisfied disapprove comments of voting members subject to special measures be treated if more voting members subject to special measures submit approve votes than those submitting disapprove votes?

In my opinion, the comments should be treated as unsatisfied disapproves. If they remain unsatisfied when submitting the draft standard to the EC for approval to start sponsor ballot, the unsatisfied comments should be included in the package presented to the EC.

Regards,

Pat

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Pat Thaler <pat.thaler@broadcom.com> wrote:

Dear Adrian,

Your point 3 is incorrect. We do have rules on the conduct of WG letter ballots. They are in Clause 11 of the WG P&P. 

In part: 

Approval to forward a draft standard to the Sponsor shall require approval by a Working Group

Electronic Ballot. Abstains shall require a reason be given, and Do Not Approve votes shall

require comments on changes required to modify the vote to Approve. For a letter ballot on a

draft standard to be valid a majority of all the voting members of the Working Group must have

responded Approve, Do Not Approve, or Abstain. Comment resolution, recirculations, etc.

should be consistent with Sponsor ballot rules and 5.4.3.2 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board

Operations Manual (SASB OM).

I think your point 1 provides the best basis for providing a consistent treatment of the letter ballot. 

Under such a view, the voters still submit votes with any comments they wish to make independently. The votes are counted as one vote in the ballot tally but the comments are resolved through the normal comment resolution process. 

Your response to the question on whether an individual can lose their voting rights for not responding while they are subject to special measures isn't consistent with this view. 

Also that response says that the voters would not be penalized for failing to respond even if they are not subject to special measures in a subsequent recirculation. The result of such a ruling could be that the ballot falls below the required response threshold as those voters start to be counted without having an obligation to vote. If the SIG is disbanded or some companies leave the SIG near the end of the initial ballot, the initial ballot might fail response threshold. 

You should reconsider that Q&A response. The voters should vote as normal on letter ballot with just the tally being adjusted due to counting the votes as one. 

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Adrian Stephens <adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org> wrote:

Dear all,

In the interests of full disclosure,  I have received a comment from an EC member on my
proposed method of conducting letter ballot.

That member believes that the method I propose is not valid.  I believe they would prefer the
ballot group to be fixed at the start of the ballot and remain constant until the completion of
the ballot series.

I believe that my proposal is valid, and offer the following points in support of my opinion:
1. One way of looking at the "special measure" is that they do not affect the composition of the ballot group,  but
they do affect the means of calculating a result from the votes cast (i.e. such votes are "counted as one").
2. If all members subject to special measures are excluded from the ballot,  how is the vote of this group of members to be determined?
3. There are no rules that I am aware of for conduct of WG letter ballots.  In 802.11 we generally make WG letter ballot as similar as possible to sponsor ballot,  but there is no requirement that this be so.
4. This is an exceptional case, not covered by sponsor ballot rules.

Best Regards,

Adrian Stephens
IEEE 802.11 Working Group Chair
mailto: adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org
Phone: +1 (971) 203-2032
Skype: adrian_stephens

On 24/11/2016 07:40, Adrian Stephens wrote:

Dear 802.11 participants and EC,

As 802.11 WG chair,  I have been instructed to implement the remedy approved by the 802 EC.
In doing so,  a number of questions about process have already been asked by participants.

I have attempted to answer these here:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/16/11-16-1568-00-0000-interpretation-of-special-measures.doc

If anybody has an additional question,  I will attempt to answer it in this document, provided it falls
within the scope of the actions that I have been instructed to take.

----------
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.