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

Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Editorial


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@INTEL.COM] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:22 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Editorial
> Mat:
> A few observations on your "more extensive" changes, and 
> desired changes.
> 1.  If a TAG doesn't mind being a WG in the P&P then I'll 
> have a harder time arguing against a task force being 
> abrievated as TG.

Mat and Bob ...

There is a distinct difference between a TAG and a WG ... TAGs may not write
(full use) standards - only Recommended Practices and other "specialty"
documents within their chartered purview ...

Why would a task force be abbreviated "TG" ???
> 2.  No problem on lower case plenary and interim.  Unless the 
> WG plenary change needs to distinguish a Plenary (i.e., LMSC 
> Plenary) from a generic plenary (i.e., WG Plenary or LMSC 
> Plenary).  But then, capitalization being the only 
> distinguishing characteristic would probably be a bit too 
> subtle for me.

I have no problem with the little p ...
> 3.  Subclause 17.1 has bigger problems than a non-existent 
> working guide.  We shouldn't reiterate NesCom and SB 
> requirements at all, only reference them.  It is in conflict 
> with 7.4 (two plenary sessions instead of six months).  The 
> second bullet is instructions for filling out the PAR form 
> and don't belong here any more than the bad reference.

Agree with Bob ...
> 4.  It seems strange to me to replace things like "working 
> groups" with WG and leave the occurances already in the P&P 
> of "WGs".  Your attempt to have the singular be defined as 
> either singular or plural is incomplete.

Agree with Bob ...


This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.