Re: [802SEC] Kibis in Kauai
Its good to know that the traditional IEEE principle of openness has been
applied to this activity...
- Raising a PAR in May, completing Sponsor ballot in July, and gaining
revCom approval in September of the same year is a remarkable, even
superhuman, feat - and one that can only be accomplished, IMHO, in the
absence of considered review - unless, of course, the project is entirely
content free and/or uncontentious.
_ As your slides point out, it is clear that this process has not been made
open to interested parties (such as 802) that may well have been moved to
join the balloting pool if they had been aware of this activity and its
impact, and might even (perish the thought) have chosen to pass comment on
this interesting document.
- I believe that the SB should rule that the Sponsor Ballot was invalid for
the above reasons, and that the pool should be re-formed, following
explicit notification and to all other IEEE standards activities/committees
that might be affected, and following a suitable notice period (6 months?)
for the notification to reach individuals that may feel the need to join
At 01:13 05/11/2002 -0800, Howard Frazier wrote:
>Dear IEEE 802 LMSC SEC Members,
>I have asked Paul for a brief amount of time to
>make a presentation at the opening plenary
>meeting in Kauai on a subject that will come
>before the IEEE-SA Standards Board in
>December. Attached please find a set of
>slides that will explain the issue.
>The topic is important, even though it is
>sometimes hard to discuss it with a straight face.
>I won't have enough time to present all of
>the slides at the plenary, but I plan to cover at
>least the 2nd and 3rd slides, and possibly
>the 4th. The remainder have been included
>to help explain the issue, and hopefully
>The Standards Board needs to hear from
>people who have a stake in the subject.
>For reasons outlined in the slide deck, I
>believe that materially interested parties are
>completely unaware of actions that have been
>taken to date, and are not aware of the certain
>impact of IEEE draft standard P1541.
>I hope that you will see fit to share this material
>with your working groups, and to elicit their
>feedback. I believe that if the LMSC takes a
>position on this subject, it can have an effect
>on the Standards Board's decision.
>Here's the key to the whole thing: Look at
>the "shall" statements on slide 2, and ask yourself
>if all new and revised IEEE standards should have
>to conform to them, because if P1541 becomes
>an IEEE standard, that's what will happen.