[EFM] Re: [EFM-Copper] Copper questions for EFM
Dong,
My apologies, the votes were:
Y: 21 N: 5 A: 3 -- 80.8% in favor of baseline chosen
and
Y: 8 N: 11 A: 8 -- only 57.9% against the alternative
I regret that I wrote from memory (that the Yes vote was small) without
checking.
Hugh.
"Wei, Dong" wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to comment on the following statements in Hugh's e-mail.
>
> >2. St. Louis copper sub task force
>
> >We spent a lot of time in the copper STF discussing what would happen after
> we choose a
> >baseline - particularly the choosing of a line code. As a result, there was
> a lot of
> >division and (though I hate to say it) ill-feeling. Despite all this, we
> passed the
> >baseline proposal by >80%. The rival baseline proposal was rejected by
> >80%.
>
> According to my notes, the voting result for the first baseline proposal in
> the copper STF was Y:37, N:10, A:9. This implies that the copper STF passed
> the proposal by about 78.7% instead of by >80%. In fact, it was just two
> votes away from being rejected. The voting result for the rival baseline
> proposal was Y:14, N:32, A:16. This implies that it was rejected by about
> 69.6% instead of by >80%. Therefore, the two statements made in Hugh's
> e-mail on voting results are incorrect.
>
> I think that telling the truth is one of the first few steps to give and get
> R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dong Wei, Ph.D.
> Senior Member of Technical Staff - Broadband Access
> SBC Technology Resources, Inc.
> 9505 Arboretum Blvd., Austin, TX 78759
> Phone: (512) 372-5615 Fax: (512) 372-5691
> Pager: (888) 520-1559
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of
> SBC, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual
> or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named
> recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this
> message in error, please notify the sender at 512 372-5615 and delete this
> message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention,
> dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly
> prohibited.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugh Barrass [mailto:hbarrass@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 11:18 AM
> To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org
> Subject: [EFM-Copper] Copper questions for EFM
>
> Fellow EFM'ers,
>
> Following the St. Louis meeting, we (the whole EFM TF) have some serious
> questions to
> consider regarding the copper effort. Those of you who were at the meeting
> will remember
> that there was much confusion over copper baselines and proposals. A
> super-brief
> summary:
>
> 1. The Raleigh compromise
>
> After much debate & discussion regarding seemingly incompatible goals and
> objectives, we
> reached a compromise which seemed acceptable to both the "DSL-types" and the
> "Ethernet-old-guard."
>
> 802.3ah would define a single PHY, aimed at short reach, high bandwidth
> applications.
> This definition would be based on VDSL and would preserve the interface
> definitions from
> T1E1.4 (alpha/beta) and ITU-T SG15/Q4 (gamma) which would enable other
> standards to be
> defined in a compatible manner. These would include (but not be limited to)
> SHDSL, ADSL
> and the to-be-developed 10MDSL.
>
> As a result, we passed the copper objectives unanimously in the Task Force.
>
> 2. St. Louis copper sub task force
>
> We spent a lot of time in the copper STF discussing what would happen after
> we choose a
> baseline - particularly the choosing of a line code. As a result, there was
> a lot of
> division and (though I hate to say it) ill-feeling. Despite all this, we
> passed the
> baseline proposal by >80%. The rival baseline proposal was rejected by >80%.
>
> 3. St. Louis surprise motion
>
> A motion was introduced in the closing Task Force session which was not on
> the agenda.
> This motion said, in essence, that we should reject the copper objectives
> and baselines
> and replace them with new versions proposed. This motion got >60% support
> but failed to
> win the 75% it needed to be binding.
>
> The fact that it got a majority (albeit slim) is a major problem for the
> copper STF as
> it shows that the consensus reached in 1 & 2 above is completely invalid.
>
> 4. St. Louis baseline vote
>
> When the copper STF presented their baseline adoption to the main Task Force
> the
> proposal got a majority but failed to reach the 75% needed for adoption.
> This may be
> largely due to the discussion and ensuing confusion following the surprise
> motion.
>
> The net effect is that the copper STF is without a baseline.
>
> ====================================================================
> So this leaves us with some questions which need to be addressed by the Task
> Force to
> resolve the copper problems:
>
> A. What do you want the copper STF to do?
>
> This is the big question - do you want the copper STF to disband (meaning
> that we
> resubmit the PAR for 802.3ah without a copper track)? do you want to restate
> the copper
> objectives (also meaning a resubmission of the PAR to 802.3)? do you want
> the copper STF
> to choose a different baseline (or to choose in a different manner) which
> meets the
> agreed objectives?
>
> B. How can we maintain consensus from one meeting to the next?
>
> If we can swing from unanimous support to 60% opposition in 2 months - on
> the basis of a
> surprise motion, how can we continue with any degree of confidence?
>
> C. When and how must these questions be answered?
>
> Do we need a "final resolution" in May? Can we make such a resolution in an
> interim and
> expect it to hold for the Plenary?
>
> I look forward to any input on this subject. Feel free to send responses to
> the
> reflector or to myself privately as appropriate.
>
> Hugh.