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

FW: [802SEC] Ballot periods


I object to your characterization of my position. I don't see a 
record of me saying "we should just defer to whatever staff decides 
to do". What I said is that the 802 rules do not specify a minimum 
duration for sponsor ballots or sponsor ballot recircs.

If we change the rules to specify minimum durations then, of course, 
we ought to make sure that the Balloting Center runs our ballots 

Under the status quo, I do not agree that we are in danger of ballots 
being overturned on appeal for following the Balloting Center 
defaults (29-30 days for a ballot and 9-10 for a recirc). Those 
defaults are in accordance with LMSC and IEEE-SA rules. [The IEEE-SA 
doesn't say much about this, although the Standards Companion says 
"Recirculations normally do not take the time that regular ballots 
do--most are only about 10 days in length."]

I would support an LMSC rules change to require minimum durations on 
sponsor ballots and recircs. 30 days and 10 days would be my 


At 4:06 PM -0800 03/02/04, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>I believe that we screwed up on this one. I thoroughly support your 
>effort. The SA staff is in no better shape than we are in this area 
>and remember that, in spite of VERY long standing practice we had NO 
>FOUNDATION WHATSOEVER in our OR/P&P for any recirc to less than 30 
>days for the majority of the last 20 years.
>It is my position that Roger was incorrect when he said that we 
>should just defer to whatever staff decides to do. This is an area 
>where we could lose an appeal. I believe that the SA should be 
>providing balloting services to Sponsors under Sponsor rules. 
>Sponsors, in turn, are supposed to get their P&P approved by AudCom. 
>It is not a rigorous system. Paul ultimately is on the hook for the 
>I would like to take him off the hook...
>         ...assure that there is adequate time for review
>         ...and remove any uncertainty regarding our system.
>My position will be that, with an underlying rationale to see that 
>the ballot is in hand for at least 10 days, our rules need to say 
>that all 802 ballot (i.e. Working Group and LMSC) recirculations 
>will be at least 15 days from the timestamp of the announcing e-mail 
>until the close of ballot.
>Thanks for grabbing the ball on this.
>At 12:41 PM 1/24/2003 -0800, Grow, Bob wrote:
>>This is to inform you that I intend to propose a rules change to 
>>enforce minimum ballot periods for our Sponsor ballots.  I also 
>>intend to raise the issue of ballot periods to ProCom for all SA 
>>ballots.  It is now clear to me that the ballot center does not 
>>enforce any particular ballot period.  (I also can't find any 
>>rules/P&P that requires them to enforce any arbitrary minimum.)  I 
>>believe the ballot center operates to a default -- the ballot being 
>>open for some period of time on 10 dates in the US eastern time 
>>zone (probably restricted by the announcement being sent during 
>>their working hours).  In an exchange trying to determine how the 
>>ballot center counted "days", I postulate what I thought was a 
>>theoretical question asking if the period would be have to be 10 
>>days (i.e., 10 * 24 hours) or only 10 calendar dates.  At the time 
>>the question was posed, I thought the ballot center was enforcing a 
>>minimum ballot period  what I got in response was an offer for a SB 
>>recirculation period a day shorter (i.e., days).
>>I just received a particularly onerous example of what is being 
>>allowed by the ballot center.  I received the announcement slightly 
>>before noon Pacific Time.  The ballot closes on February 2 at 11:59 
>>pm EST.
>>So, for me, I have 9.375 days to respond (and four of those days 
>>are on a weekend).  For many international participants, they 
>>realistically will have much less time with this ballot (many won't 
>>see the announcement until their Monday morning).  If one or two of 
>>you would like to review my proposed rules change text prior to 
>>distribution to the SEC I would appreciate a response.
>>Bob Grow
>>Chair, IEEE 802.3 Working Group