Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] RE: 802.0 ReCirculation

Here's an interesting story regarding the significance of the material
in the front of a standard:

At the June standards board meeting, a document was up
for reaffirmation. The reaffirmation ballot had passed, with only
one dissenting ballot, which had been recirculated.  The dissenting
ballot disagreed with some text in the front matter of the standard.

One of the standards board (and RevCom) members who was very familiar
with the subject agreed with the dissenting balloter.  He was able
to persuade half of RevCom to go along with him in disapproval of
the reaffirmation.  The other half of RevCom voted against disapproval
on the grounds that a) the process had been followed and the ballot
group voted for approval and b) the front matter of the standard was
not subject to balloting.

The RevCom chair broke the tie by siding with those in favor of
disapproval, but the issue was so controversial that it was taken off
the consent agenda for the Standards Board, and put up for discussion.
The Standards Board split exactly 50-50, just like RevCom, and the
standards board chairman had to break the tie, also voting for disapproval.

Why am I bringing this up? To point out that things aren't as cut and
dried as we might like them to be, and that strange things can happen
when you have a controversial document.

In the case of 802.0 (and, I guess, all 802 standards from now on until
this mess settles out), a certain degree of paranoia is probably good for
your health.  Expected the unexpected.

Regarding the proposed text of the front matter, I think that the text 
should be part of the recirc package.  I agree with Tony's points, but
I think that the ballot group has a right and a need to see the revised
front matter, and that if disapprovals are cast on the recirc as a
result of the revised front matter, then we will need to consider them
"in scope", and handle them accordingly.

Regarding Geoff's points, I agree with him that we are in terra incognita,
but I believe that RevCom and the Standards Board will allow changes and
a recirc of 802.0 at this point, and consider that the PAR is still open.
I believe that the Standards Board will allow the rules to be bent in
the interest of finding a solution that is agreeable to staff and the
balloting group.

Regarding abstentions, I think that the Standards Board finds mass
abstentions anathema.  I sure don't want to show up at the September
meeting with a case of massive abstentions.  802 would look really dumb.
(I wonder if my medical insurance covers massive abstentions?)


Tony Jeffree wrote:
> Paul -
> The point here is that we really don't need the recirc to become a
> discussion of issues that are necessarily outside the scope of a technical
> group. I don't consider that a detailed explanation of the legal ins and
> outs of this will be at all illuminating & will simply promote a
> non-terminating discussion within a larger participating group.
> Similarly, as the text that is proposed for the front matter is *not* the
> subject of the ballot, and is *not* destined to be part of the standard,
> circulating it as part of the ballot package would simply have invited
> comment on material that is out of scope of the standard.
> I don't think it is going to be at all helpful to re-open this issue.  I
> believe the best, and most appropriate, course of action here is to remove
> the body of Clause 5; as the IEEE lawyers considered it unacceptable for it
> simply to vanish in one go, the proposed NOTE stating where the policy can
> be found and that the clause will disappear next time around seems to me to
> be a reasonable compromise.
> Regards,
> Tony
> At 11:20 05/09/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >Tony,
> >
> >In the cover note you refer to 'legal issues' and 'negative legal
> >ramifications' without specifically identifying they are.  It is essential
> >for the balloter to understand what those legal issues are.  I recommend
> >the IEEE lawyers should explain the issues and they be included in the next
> >recirc ballot package if there is one.
> >
> >I also agree with Jim's points.  I will vote disapprove.
> >
> >--Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >At 08:39 AM 9/5/01 -0500, Jim Carlo wrote:
> > >
> > >I will vote Do Not Approve,
> > >
> > >pending review of what the Front Matter says, and a statement in the Front
> > >Matter that this "Front Matter is not part of the standard and was not
> > >approved by ballot". Rationale is the front matter policy statement should
> > >clearly state that it was not part of the standard ballot process. In the
> > >past, there have been several ballot comments on the front matter, and
> > >whether this is part of the standard or not, was a discussion item.
> > >
> > >Jim Carlo ( Cellular:1-214-693-1776
> > >Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274
> > >TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
> > >Vice Chair, IEEE-SA Standards Board
> > >Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Tony Jeffree []
> > >Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:48 AM
> > >To:
> > >Cc: IEEE802
> > >Subject: Re: 802.0 ReCirculation
> > >
> > >
> > >Jim -
> > >
> > >The IEEE lawyers considered it to be a problem that the clause would simply
> > >disappear in this revision; hence the NOTE. As the front matter is not the
> > >subject of the ballot (it is not part of the standard), the front matter
> > >text was not included in the ballot package.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Tony
> > >
> > >At 20:22 04/09/2001 -0500, Jim Carlo wrote:
> > >>Tony, I received your recirculation ballot. The note is confusing to me.
> > >>
> > >>I guess I was under the impression that the Clause 5 would be deleted, it
> > >>would have been nice if the balloter could see the what was going to go in
> > >>the Front matter. Have you seen this?
> > >>
> > >>Jim Carlo ( Cellular:1-214-693-1776
> > >>Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274
> > >>TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
> > >>Vice Chair, IEEE-SA Standards Board
> > >>Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
> > >
> > >
> > >