| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Some comments below.
From: Behcet Sarikaya
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008
3:49 AM
To: Peretz (Peretz) Feder
Subject: Re: [802.21] MRPM PAR: WG
LB-3
Hi Peretz,
Thank you for raising this issue. Let me complete Vivek's answer.
You were not in Hawaii
so you have not seen what happened there. You were not in Denver
nor in Jacksonville
but that's none of my business.
In Hawaii
interim, probably for the first time in 802.21's history, the closing plenary
was held in pm2 session on Wednesday.
[VG] For the first time we had less than five SB comments to resolve in the Sept meeting as opposed to 100s that we normally have. Most of the SGs were pretty light with their agenda as well and gave up their slots for Wed and Thu. As such we did not have agenda items for Thursday. All SG Chairs were consulted on this aspect on Tuesday evening and based on that the plan was to close at end of Wednesday. However when MRPM met on Wed morning (AM1), based on comments and discussion it was clear that they were not gonna get done with their PAR at Hawaii. As such in conjunction with key MRPM folks (and MRPM SG Chair) it was thought (during Wed AM1 coffee break) that a WG LB may be the best way to go forward with MRPM PAR. That would give them more time to complete their PAR with a better chance of success. MRPM did not express any interest in using the Mon/Tue evening slots that are available during interims as well. The closing plenary was subsequently moved to Wed PM2 session.
We started Wednesday pm2 session as MRPM SG session. About 15 minutes later Vivek took over and ran the closing plenary. He is known to have gone to the airport Wednesday night. I have witnesses on this.
[VG] My own personal decision to get back to mainland US at end of Wed was not made until late Wed afternoon. I was originally supposed to leave on Thursday evening. The decision was made more because we had no agenda items for Thursday. As it turns out I did eventually leave Kona on Thursday.
However, during the closing plenary, as Vivek mentioned below, the motion on MRPM PAR was accepted.
[VG] This was the motion to conduct a WG LB on MRPM PAR because the PAR was not yet done (and not to approve MRPM PAR as might appear).
MRPM SG met on Thursday
to continue to discuss the PAR/5C. While other WGs were having their regular
meetings, we could not because 802.21 closing plenary was already held. The
meeting we held was then called an adhoc meeting in IEEE.
After we completed the PAR, I put up the motion. It was dicussed and
decided that no motion was needed because 802.21 motion for letter ballot was
already accepted. So we unanymously accepted the straw poll and the meeting was
closed. With this MRPM SG was able to submit its PAR/5C which is now being
voted.
[VG] Even during the WG closing plenary there were no issues to closing on Wed evening. The reason why MRPM PAR has been in difficulty is partly because it started with another relatively different version in Hawaii and there were too many changes being made. Online editing did not go very well during Sept meeting. As it stands even now the PAR requires some more work before it can be forwarded to 802EC.
Best Regards -Vivek
----- Original Message
----
From: "Gupta, Vivek G" <vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM>
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2008 5:47:38 AM
Subject: Re: [802.21] MRPM PAR: WG LB-3
From: Feder, Peretz (Peretz)
[mailto:pfeder@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008
9:27 PM
To: Gupta, Vivek G
Subject: RE: [802.21] MRPM PAR: WG
LB-3
Well Vivek, the notes clearly indicate that the SG was in an adhoc meeting and that the decision to forward the PAR by the SG was
a straw poll in the adhoc SG meeting.
[VG] I am not sure which notes are these. But as I pointed before this motion was approved in WG meeting.
So I donʼt think the MRPM PAR was approved before the WG approved to conduct an LB.
[VG] There was a motion brought forward to approve the PAR in WG by a LB and that passed and hence this ballot is on.
Peretz Feder
From: Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008
7:06 PM
To: Feder, Peretz (Peretz)
Subject: RE: [802.21] MRPM PAR: WG
LB-3
Peretz,
The decision to conduct a LB on this PAR was taken during the regular WG meeting.
A motion was passed to that effect.
Further discussion on the PAR happened in an ad hoc group.
Best Regards
-Vivek
From: Feder, Peretz (Peretz)
[mailto:pfeder@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008
3:40 PM
To: Gupta, Vivek G
Cc: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: FW: [802.21] MRPM PAR: WG
LB-3
Vivek:
How can our working group consider PAR approval LB motion for a decision taken in an ad-hoc study group meeting that based the call for approval on a straw poll?
Am I the only one failing to see the logic and the process taken here?
Peretz Feder
From: Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM]
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008
6:56 PM
Subject: [802.21] MRPM PAR: WG
LB-3
Multi-Radio Power Management related presentations/discussions have been going on in 802.21 for almost two years.
The MRPM SG was created in July-2007.
Motions to approve the PAR produced by this group failed on two occasions in Jan-2008 and in March-2008.
Thereafter this group has gone ahead and done further work. The latest PAR from this group is now available at:
http://mentor.ieee.org/802.21/file/08/21-08-0250-06-mrpm-par-for-mrpm.doc
Below are instructions for WG LB-3 which asks the question to approve this PAR and forward it to 802EC for consideration at the Nov-08 meeting:
http://mentor.ieee.org/802.21/file/08/21-08-0281-00-0000-lb-3-instructions.doc
Ballot opening Date: Sep 20, 2008
Ballot closing date: Oct 04, 2008, AOE (Anywhere on Earth)
Best Regards
-Vivek