[802SEC] Fwd: Re: [802SEC] [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] EC electronic ballot on 802.22 press release (CLEAN version of document attached)
>Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:44:58 +0100
>To: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
>From: Tony Jeffree <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] EC electronic ballot on 802.22
>press release (CLEAN version of document attached)
>
>I approve also.
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>At 23:11 30/03/2006, you wrote:
>>I vote Approve.
>>
>>I agree with John Hawkins that we should reserve press releases for
>>specific concrete achievements. In my mind, starting WG Letter Ballot is
>>the first concrete achievement in a project.
>>
>>However, while the EC discusses its view on the policy, I'm willing to
>>vote Approve on this one.
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>
>>At 05:00 PM -0500 06/03/30, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>>>I sent the "track changes" version with the ballot so Roger and others could
>>>see the changes from the version I posted with the original motion to
>>>address Roger's helpful comments.
>>>
>>>Attached is a "CLEAN" version (changes accepted) for those who prefer that.
>>>(If one ignores the "track changes" showing the delta, they are identical.)
>>>
>>>Since there will still be at least 10 days prior to the close of the ballot,
>>>the previously noted closing time stands.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Carl
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 3:02 PM
>>>> To: wk3c@WK3C.COM
>>>> Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] EC electronic ballot on 802.22 press release
>>>>
>>>> Carl,
>>>>
>>>> If this were a recirc, I think it would be fine
>>>> to send around a marked-up copy for review.
>>>> However, in a new ballot, I think that the voters
>>>> need to see a clean copy. Otherwise, I think you
>>>> introduce unnecessary ambiguity add make the task
>>>> of the voters unnecessarily complicated.
>>>>
>>>> Since you had already distributed a preview copy,
>>>> I understand why you wanted to show markups. But,
>>>> on principle, I think it is important that the
>>>> ballot group members see a clean copy and know
>>>> that this is the document they are voting to
>>>> approve.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Roger
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At 02:38 PM -0500 06/03/30, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>>>> >Dear all,
>>>> >
>>>> >Paul has delegated it to me to conduct an EC electronic ballot on the
>>>> >approval of the attached proposed 802.22 press release.
>>>> >
>>>> >In response to my earlier motion, I received some editorial
>>>> comments from
>>>> >Roger, which I appreciate and think add clarity, so I'm
>>>> attaching a "r1"
>>>> >version of the document which shows the changes that Roger
>>>> suggested and I
>>>> >find acceptable and THAT is the version that's the subject
>>>> of this ballot.
>>>> >
>>>> >MOVE: That the EC approve the release of the attached press
>>>> release on
>>>> >802.22's progress (document PR_P02_22V4r1.doc).
>>>> >Moved: Stevenson
>>>> >Second: Shellhammer (Dr. Shellhammer has read the document -
>>>> including the
>>>> >editorial changes in "r1" - and agreed to 2nd my motion.)
>>>> >
>>>> >INFORMATIONAL - this DRAFT press release accurately states
>>>> the current
>>>> >status of 802.22 and points to the significant progress that
>>>> 802.22 has
>>>> >achieved by going from 10 initial proposals to a single
>>>> merged proposal
>>>> >(baseline) between November 2005 and March 2006. I think
>>>> that, coupled with
>>>> >Stuart's press release indicating similar movement towards
>>>> consensus in one
>>>> >of his TGs, it is important to give 802 some positive press
>>>> rather than
>>>> >simply
>>>> >allowing them to feed on the occasional contentious deadlock as has,
>>>> >unfortunately, been the case in the past.
>>>> >(Karen McCabe had reviewed, edited, and approved the
>>>> previously circulated
>>>> >version (prior to Roger's editorial suggestions), so I am
>>>> simultaneously
>>>> >cc'ing the "r1" version attached to her for her review and
>>>> approval and do
>>>> >not anticipate that she will have any problems with the
>>>> editorial changes
>>>> >that Roger suggested and I've accepted. However, regardless
>>>> of the EC vote
>>>> >on this ballot, I will not ask Karen to release the press
>>>> release in the
>>>> >event she does have problems with the changes. I will also
>>>> inform the EC
>>>> >ASAP if she indicates to me that she *does* have any
>>>> problems with the
>>>> >changes and I will re-start the clock on the ballot on a
>>>> "r2" version that
>>>> >addresses any unanticipated issues she may have with the
>>>> revised version.)
>>> > >
>>>> >This ("10 day")EC e-mail ballot will close at 11:59 pm EST
>>>> on April 9th,
>>>> >2006, or when all EC members have voted, whichever comes first.
>>>> >
>>>> >Your prompt attention to voting will be appreciated.
>>>> >
>>>> >Regards,
>>>> >Carl
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >----------
>>>> >This email is sent from the 802 Executive
>>>> >Committee email reflector. This list is
>>>> >maintained by Listserv.
>>>> >
>>>> >Attachment converted: Little Al:PR_P802 22V4_r1.doc
>>>> (WDBN/<IC>) (000B3485)
>>>>
>>>
>>>----------
>>>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>>>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>>>
>>>Attachment converted: Little Al:PR_P802 22V4_r1_CLEAN.doc (WDBN/«IC»)
>>>(000B3766)
>>
>>----------
>>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.