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

[802SEC] Status of P802.3an conditional submittal to RevCom


P802.3an was granted conditional approval for submission to RevCom at
the closing March EC meeting.  Per LMSC P&P clause 20, I offer the
following report on the conditions.

a.  The P802.3an/D4.0 recirculation ballot has closed with the following

Ballot Open Date: 04/24/2006 
Ballot Close Date: 05/09/2006 

This ballot has met the 75% returned ballot requirement.  

200 eligible people in this ballot group.  

163 affirmative votes 
6 negative votes with comments 
0 negative votes without comments 
16 abstention votes 

185 votes received =   93 % returned 
  9 % abstention 

The 75% affirmation requirement is being met.  

163 affirmative votes 
6 negative votes with comments 

169 votes = 96% affirmative 

Because there was one valid new comment (though not considered by the WG
Chair to be a substantive change), 802.3 rules require that they be
considered by the Task Force at the May meeting in accordance with the
schedule presented to the EC in March.

b.	There were no new negative votes and approval stands at 96%.
c.	No technical changes have been made, and the project leadership
recommends no changes be made in response to comments.  There is though
a possibility that the TF may decide to make changes at its May 24
d.	No new disapprove comments were received.  All four comments
received are not binding.  
e.	No new negative comments ruled as invalid.
f.	See attached file for the six remaining negative comments.  The
first two digits of the comment number indicate the draft and ballot
(30xxx initial WG ballot, 31xxx 1st recirculation, etc.)

Comment Background

There remain six unresolved negative comments that were received in
earlier ballots as shown in the attached required comments summary file.
These comments have met all requirements for recirculation.  Many of the
comments that were unresolved when conditional approval was granted by
the EC have been satisfied with either a written indication, or a
subsequent affirmative ballot.

The four non-binding comments received in this P802.3an/D4.0 ballot are
judged by the WG Chair as follows (see attached file for proposed

1.	In scope of the ballot, but non-substantive.  Text shown in the
previous draft as strikethrough should have been removed as the
information is part of an insert instruction, not changes to existing
text.  Instead of deleting the table rows with everything struck through
in the previous draft, the editor only removed the strike through on the
text.  The table rows to be deleted identify "Reserved" registers, yet
those registers are defined in other rows of the table.  If the
publication editor determines these changes to be substantive, a
recirculation will be required.

2.	This comment is out of scope.  It proposes an addition of a
bibliography reference to the draft.  Something unrelated to changes
made from the previous draft.

3.	This comment is out of scope as it addresses deficiencies in
myBallot, not the draft.  It is also a non-binding pile-on comment.

4.	This comment is out of scope as it addresses unchanged text.
Though it does point out an error where the wrong register number is
listed next to the named register, it does not affect the technical
integrity of the document.  The function is not used by P802.3an, but
will be used by P802.3ap and can be corrected (if determined substantive
by the publication editor) in P802.3ap.  (The comment has also been
submitted against P802.3ap which in appropriate cases like this is using
P802.3an base text for marking changes.

The 802.3 WG Chair determines the Clause 20 conditions for leaving the
project on the RevCom agenda have been met to date.  It is expected that
some editorial changes will be recommended for consideration by the
publication editor from the current comments.  If, contrary to
expectation, any substantive changes are made to the draft in the May 24
P802.3an TF meeting, the project will be pulled from the June RevCom


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