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

Re: [802SEC] Kibis in Kauai


While the history is interesting, I consider it irrelevant to the
central issue.

Given the WIDE impact of this proposed standard, a sponsor ballot group
of 16 individuals can not possibly represent the breadth of individuals,
organizations and interests that are affected by the proposed standard. 
Such a small sponsor ballot group and unanimous approval in two months
is to me clear evidence that the IEEE-SA criteria for formation of the
sponsor ballot group,

	"The balloting group shall provide for the development of consensus
	by all interests significantly affected by the scope of the standard",

was not achieved.  This was a malformed sponsor ballot group.  The
sponsor ballot group must be reformed and the proposed standard
reballoted.  I don't think there is any other reasonable option.



Tony Jeffree wrote:
> Roger -
> I agree the history puts a slightly different slant on this; however, none
> of this explains why there has been no visible mechanism for joining the
> balloting pool, nor any encouragement from SCC14 for interested parties to
> do so at the point when they decided to form a balloting group.
> So, interesting history lesson, but for me, it doesn't get them off the hook.
> Regards,
> Tony
> At 09:22 05/11/2002 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
> >Howard,
> >
> >As background to my comments, I should say that, though I am not in any
> >way involved in this standards project, I am in favor of it.
> >
> >People may misunderstand the history of this project when they read that
> >the PAR was approved in May 2002. That was a revised PAR. The original PAR
> >was approved on 8 December 1998. (I just looked it up.) The draft has been
> >around for a very long time too. Perhaps that's why the Sponsor Ballot
> >proceeded so quickly.
> >
> >This topic has not been a secret. For example, Jim Carlo forwarded the SEC
> >a coordinating note on this issue almost three years ago:
> >
> >Attached to that note was P1541 Draft 2 (dated 1999-12-24) including
> >virtually the same language as your Slide 2.
> >
> >That coordinating note invited comment. I wrote to Bruce Barrow, and he
> >replied.
> >
> >Even earlier, and independently, I wrote to the SEC on this issue in
> >December 1999:
> >
> >with a followup by Vic:
> >
> >
> >My note cited a few other sources, including an August 1999 IEEE Spectrum
> >article quoting Bruce Barrow:
> >
> >
> >as saying "it is unlikely the standard would be adopted before mid-2000."
> >(Good prognostication!)
> >
> >Roger
> >
> >
> >At 1:13 AM -0800 02/11/05, 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
> >>stimulate debate.
> >>
> >>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.
> >>
> >>Howard Frazier
> >>
> >>
> >>Attachment converted: TiDrive:kibi.pdf (PDF /CARO) (00130AB2)
> >
> Regards,
> Tony