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

Re: [802SEC] Proposed action on 802.15.3a PAR withdrawal

(2nd try, the list server rejected my 1st attempt)
At 09:38 AM 1/26/2006 , Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
 > Bob / All,
 > For the sake of brainstorming here are some possible resolutions:
 >1) Reduce consensus level to 66%

Ultimately will not work and just delays the problem. If you can't get 75% 
at WG ballot what makes you think you can get 75% at Sponsor Ballot.

 > 2) Entity balloting

Possibility but probably takes it out of 802 under current rules. In any 
case it would require a PAR modification along with the attendant approvals.

 > 4) Task Group membership
 > 4) Mandatory PAR split if predefined stalemate conditions occur

I don't quite understand how these allege to solve the problem, although a 
negotiated split has resolved some problems in the past.


 > I don't advocate one particular route or another,
 > but all of these have been suggested as potential parts of a solution.
 > Another issue is cross task group / cross working group / sponsor level
 > influence.  If you have two Task Groups working on potentially competing
 > technologies can they block each other?  Also, people seem more apt to
 > cross working groups lately if they see activities in that other group
 > as competing with their own.  In the past they were willing to live and
 > let live.  This seems less true today.  Also, even if you get a standard
 > through at the WG level, there is still the sponsor ballot.  Any
 > interested party can participate there and kill something if they feel
 > it competes with a different solution that they advocate.
 > Personally I advocate a process which is more procedural and less
 > judgmental.  We have set ourselves up through the PAR / 5 criteria and
 > WG processes as judge and jury as to whether a project has merit, and
 > which sets of technologies should be allowed to proliferate.  I'd rather
 > see us merely be an instrument and forum for the development and
 > documentation of solid specifications, and let the market decide.  The
 > specifications that succeed in the market will be come the standards
 > that further generations of specifications are based on.  We need a
 > process that reduces the potential gains available (or ability) to block
 > work on a basis of market addressed, or technology used.
 > At least that's my view.
 > Regards,
 > Mat
 > Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
 > Senior Member Technical Staff
 > Office: +1 973.633.6344
 > email:
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Heile []
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 11:46 AM
Subject: [802SEC] Proposed action on 802.15.3a PAR withdrawal

Dear EC Members

As you have all probably seen in the press, Task Group 3a in 802.15

to recommend the withdrawal of its PAR.  The action was unanimously

affirmed by the full Working Group.  The PAR was due to expire in

of this year anyway and given that one of the parties in the stalemate

adamantly refused to compromise, this is a sensible action.  I will be

submitting this recommendation for conditional inclusion on the NesCom

March meeting agenda subject to approval by the EC in Denver in a few

weeks.  Just wanted to give everyone a heads up.

Press has been generally neutral to slightly positive regarding the

action.  The IEEE has not been blamed.  That is the good news.

we may want to discuss though is the fact that this collision of

is happening more and more. We seem stymied on how to deal with blocks

voter influence through economic pressure. Proving this stuff is

and the level of proof required is unclear. Does taking action expose us

lawsuits? Our 75% consensus requirement makes it relatively easy to

an action.  These are topics we should perhaps discuss in Denver.


Bob Heile, Ph.D

Chairman, ZigBee Alliance

Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks

11 Louis Road

Attleboro, MA  02703   USA

Mobile: +1-781-929-4832



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

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

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