Re: [10GMMF] Agenda (draft) for March LRM
David,
Thanks for the clarification on the requirements that we must meet
before going to WG ballot - I was planning to ask this question at the
meeting so that I could make an informed vote on whether to go to WG
ballot. However, I remain puzzled by your explanation of "no open
technical issues." I firmly believe that there are several open
technical issues on this draft. To me, it almost seems like the ballot
conducted after the January meeting was not needed because you state
that "Given the unanimous vote to forward D1.1 to IEEE 802.3 for preview
I must manage the meeting to maximize the likelihood of achieving
Working Group Ballot." - it appears that we have already made a decision
to go to WG ballot. If it was a matter of waiting until the March
meeting for the vote, was there any need to generate a whole bunch of
comments to reject? I am not trying to be an obstructionist here but I
would like to better understand the process.
Why didn't we just go to WG ballot out of the January meeting? It
doesn't appear that we have made any significant changes to the previous
draft. There were no TBDs in D1.1 nor did we add any new functions that
I am aware of. It seems like all comments attempting to address the
"open technical issues" have been rejected. Maybe I am overreacting here
since the same comments will come in against the WG ballot but again, I
am confused by the process. Is the need to go to WG ballot a timeline
issue? Does it make sense to put in any comments prior to WG ballot?
I am sorry to hassle you about process but for some reason, something
just doesn't feel right to me.
Best regards,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of David Cunningham
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:01 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GMMF@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [10GMMF] Agenda (draft) for March LRM
Dear IEEE 802.3aq,
Attached is the draft agenda for our D1.1 review meeting.
Given the project timeline the primary goal of next weeks meeting is to
gain permission from IEEE 802.3 to go to Working Group ballot.
According to the IEEE802.3 operating rules the requirements we must meet
are the following:
"2.8.2 Draft Standard Balloting Requirements
Before a draft is submitted to WG letter ballot it shall in addition
have met the following requirements:
a) It must be complete with no open technical issues.
b) It must be made available for pre-view by the membership by the
Monday prior to the plenary week. If any changes are made to the draft
after the draft was made available for pre-view the textual changes
shall be presented for review during the closing plenary immediately
prior to the vote for approval to go to WG ballot.
c) It must be formatted according to the IEEE style selected by the WG
Chair. This style will be selected to minimize the editorial work
required for publication of the draft.
d) It must be approved for submittal to WG ballot at the 802.3 WG
closing plenary."
Given the unanimous vote to forward D1.1 to IEEE 802.3 for preview I
must manage the meeting to maximize the likelihood of achieving Working
Group Ballot. Therefore, I have arranged the agenda so that we complete
comment review on the non-rejected technical comments and as many
editorial comments as possible on the first day of the IEEE 802.3aq
meeting. This will provide our editor with the maximum amount of time to
make the edits to the document for the Thursday review of it by IEEE
802.3.
I have reviewed the comments and submitted presentations to confirm that
we do not need to hear the submitted presentations to be able to resolve
the non-rejected comments. We do however need to hear them before we
discuss the rejected comments. Therefore, most of Wednesday is devoted
to presentations and to reviewing the rejected comments. The
presentations have a lot in common with the issues raised in the
rejected comments and so I suggest we go through them first. The
rejected comments will likely re-emerge in our first Working Group
Ballot. We must review them, understand them, and agree plans to
resolve them for the May interim meeting.
To achieve permission for Working Group Ballot in March we must be very
disciplined and make only precise changes to the draft. For IEEE 802.3
to allow us to go to WG ballot rough rules-of-thumb would be as follows:
1) D1.2 should have many pages of the draft per D1.1.
2) Pages with edits should have only a few lines or table entries
changed.
3) We should give priority to feedback from the IEEE 802.3 pre-viewers
not in our group; after all they are our masters.
4) We should do nothing that might reduce the consensus on D1.1 within
LRM.
5) Complex changes should be kept for WG Ballot.
To go to Working Group ballot we need a complete draft not an absolutely
perfect or correct draft. The draft is complete, some specifications
and tests need fine-tuning, some more simulations need to be done. This
is normal for this stage of the process.
Regarding the IEEE 802.3 requirement of "no open technical issues": if
we have no TBD's, no new functions to add, and our comments are aimed at
improving specifications or tests already within the draft, then we have
no open technical issues. As far as I can see all the comments we
received, even the rejected ones, could not be portrayed as open
technical issues.
I will end the meeting at 10:30 AM on Thursday. This is to allow Nick
and myself some preparation time to finalize the report we have to give
to IEEE 802.3 on Thursday afternoon.
See you in Atlanta,
David