| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
All – I’ve been thinking about the whole debate regarding the rules, and while I think it is useful, and in the end we should have the best rules possible, we are hurting ourselves by prolonging the discussion trying to get a perfect solution
for all contingencies. We urgently need “good enough” rules to allow us to get PARs processed that were ready for consideration at the March meeting, and had been presubmitted before the March meeting to the Working Groups (which hopefully began their review).
If we don’t do that, projects that were more-than-ready to begin technical decision making as Task Forces at the May meeting will likely be languishing until the November meeting, because they won’t be able to be approved by SASB until September. Additionally,
we need to ensure that those expecting submission in July will be ON the September agenda. Delay on these makes 802 standards less competitive, and I can tell you from personal experience that some of the projects in new application areas, like automotive,
have competition from other industry groups developing specifications. We have had much good and useful debate over two fine points (what time period to use for the rules, and whether & how to give the chair emergency powers). These, in my opinion, do not matter for the urgent need. We can refine them
at a later date. I would respectfully suggest that we bring the new rules allowing PARs to progress to a vote of the EC at the earliest opportunity that the rules allow, in the simplest form possible.
With regards to a time-limit on suspension, can everyone live with 120 days at this point? (4 months). We might be able to refine it, but it appears to be in the window that most have stated, and, while not everyone’s preference, is
both precise, and meets what I have been hearing as the spirit of broad consensus. With regards to granting the power to the chair, can we just omit it at this point, and continue to consider it as a possible separate addition in the rules committee? If we pledge to continue working on it, we can limit any risk of
such an emergency happening in the meantime. Again, remember, our mission is to serve the progression of standards. We risk losing faith with those who count on us to provide a functional, timely process if we miss the very near deadlines for the June SASB meeting, and potentially
threaten September. Hopefully, with some creative minds, we can figure out how to get the presubmitted March PARs to stay on the June agenda, but even so, approving at least a single path forward quickly will help assure our colleagues that we are concerned
about restoring forward progress in the process. -george George Zimmerman, Ph.D. President & Principal CME Consulting, Inc. Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications 310-920-3860 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1 |