RE: [802SEC] Forwarding P802.3ak to Sponsor Ballot per July conditional approval
Only one comment was received on D4.2 from Mr. Thatcher and it was withdrawn per the report to the SEC, so no comment resolution meeting was/is required. The announced but poorly noticed interim meeting has been cancelled, and the cancellation notice was sent on both task force and working group reflectors.
If the Task Force had comments to address, and if someone protested the poor notice of the interim meeting, I would agree with you that a project delay would be required. With no comments to address, I do not believe that the poorly noticed but cancelled interim meeting is reason to stop progressing the project to Sponsor Ballot.
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:15 AM
To: Grow, Bob
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Forwarding P802.3ak to Sponsor Ballot per July
How many comments were received during the recirculation ballot (4.2).
Was there a meeting held to review those comments so that the requirement
"all comments shall be considered" was met?
Was that meeting properly announced to the balloting body?
I never saw any announcement to the 802.3 Working Group of a comment
resolution meeting other than that made in the closing plenary where it was
made with a request for waiver of full 30 day notice. I don't recall ever
seeing an e-mail announcement to 802.3. I never saw it announced on
I am hesitant to allow forwarding under these less than squeeky clean
At 04:11 PM 8/12/2003 -0700, Grow, Bob wrote:
>P802.3ak/D4.2 has met all requirements of Procedure 10 for forwarding to
>Sponsor ballot. Based on the results of the 2nd WG recirculation ballot
>closed Monday night, and detailed below, I have submitted a Sponsor ballot
>to the IEEE-SA ballot center for P802.3ak/D5.0
>1. The ballot was completed on the schedule presented to the EC in July.
>2. Approval exceeds the 75% requirement. The P802.3ak/D4.2 WG
>recirculation ballot results are:
>Approve 109 RespRate 68.84%
>Disapprove 1 AppRate 99.09%
>Abstain 38 AbsRate 25.68%
>3. There are no new disapprove votes or remaining unresolved negative
> a. Mr. Howard Frazier is an outstanding D4.1 disapprove voter. He
> did not submit a D4.2 ballot, though he had physically signed off on the
> resolution to all his binding D4.1 comments. Absent a written request to
> flip his vote to approve or a D4.2 ballot, this remains the only
> disapprove vote. Comment recirculation requirements have been met.
> b. Mr. Jonathan Thatcher was another D4.1 disapprove voter. He
> commented on the D4.2 ballot that one of his binding D4.1 comments was
> not properly addressed in the edits appearing in D4.2. Specifically, a
> requested informative note accepted as part of comment resolution was
> inadvertently left out of D4.2. Mr. Thatcher has indicated via email his
> desire that the draft be progressed to Sponsor Ballot. He has withdrawn
> his D4.2 comment and flipped his vote to Approve. Mr. Thatcher is not in
> the Sponsor ballot group, so the Task Force Chair has committed to
> resubmit the comment to add the informative note during Sponsor ballot.
>3. No substantive changes have been made to the draft (no technical changes).
>Chair, IEEE 802.3 Working Group