Re: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
Once again, Tony has eloquently stated what I was also thinking.
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> Tony Jeffree
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:05 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
>
> I would agree that 802.11 should not be penalized in this
> instance; however, if we are granting an exception here it
> should be a one-time exception, period, and not a license for
> all of the newbie EC members to assume that they will be
> granted a one-time "get out of jail free" card.
>
> However, I would make a few observations about the process of
> submitting files for EC consideration:
>
> Firstly, in my understanding, it is the Chair's
> responsibility (and not the Recording Secretary's) to do any
> circulation that is required in the P&P. This is the only
> occasion that I can remember when a Chair has passed the
> problem over to the RS to execute; in reality, once he had
> the PDFs all James did was to circulate them as attachments
> to an email, which the .11 Chair could have done himself (but
> please see below!), so apart from increasing the RS's
> workload and causing the submission deadline to be missed,
> its not clear to me what value was added there.
>
> Secondly, there is no requirement anywhere in our P&P (nor
> should there be IMHO) stipulating PDF as the format for
> submissions. The P&P simply state that the PAR and 5C
> "...shall be circulated via the EC reflector...", so it isn't
> at all clear to me on what basis James made that stipulation.
>
> Thirdly, and as far as I am concerned, this goes for all
> materials that EC members need to circulate to each other,
> sending stuff as attachments to emails is a royal PIA for the
> recipients, especially for things like PARs and 5C's, or
> other materials where EC members need to make their own
> constituents aware of the material. 802.1's email reflector,
> for example, has a size limit on attachments as part of our
> (very successful) SPAM filtering measures. I also don't like
> gratuitously inflicting attachments of any size on members
> of the .1 reflector; I know high speed access is commonplace
> these days, but some recipients (myself included) sometimes
> have to use low bandwidth network connections to access their
> email. So if I receive a file that has to be circulated to my
> WG, I end up posting it on my WG website, which is simply
> making more work for me. This also means that the unsolicited
> addition to my workload gets prioritized, and can fall off
> the bottom of the stack as a result. Far better, and a
> considerable courtesy to those that have to circulate the
> material elsewhere, is for the sender to post the material on
> their WG or the EC website and email the URL(s) to the EC. In
> fact, I would go as far as suggesting that we codify that as
> a requirement in our new operations manual. (Aside: There is
> a potential bottleneck with uploading to the EC reflector, as
> not all of us have upload access; however, it is worth noting
> that Luigi Napoli has recently implemented an uploads webpage
> for 802.1 that allows anyone to submit a file to an uploads
> subdirectory, and for the appropriate 802.1 officer to be
> notified - see http://ieee802.org/cgi-bin/upload_8021.
> No reason why that shouldn't be done for the EC website, and
> have the EC reflector as the recipient of the notifications.)
>
> So I would respectfully request the .11 Chair to post the PAR
> and 5C files on the .11 website (in reality, my guess is that
> they were there already, and if not, they should be!) and
> then email the reflector with the URLs.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 23:40 16/06/2008, Michael Lynch wrote:
> >James,
> >
> >I agree that .11 should not be penalized if the documents were
> >submitted to you on time.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: "James Gilb" <gilb@IEEE.ORG>
> >To: "STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> >Sent: 6/16/08 17:29
> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
> >
> >Pat
> >
> >Bruce sent me these on time, but I had a mix up in email and
> didn't get
> >them posted until today.
> >
> >I don't think 802.11 should be punished for my mistake.
> >
> >Bruce will follow up and post the 5 criteria.
> >
> >James Gilb
> >
> >Pat Thaler wrote:
> > > James,
> > >
> > > There is a problem. Our P&P have a specific procedure for
> approving
> > > new PARs (Clause 17). 17.2 contains the requirement:
> > >
> > > "Complete PARs shall be circulated via the EC email
> reflector to all
> > > Executive Committee members no less than 30 days prior to
> the day of
> > > the Opening Executive Committee meeting of an LMSC
> Plenary session."
> > >
> > > You sent this today, June 16. Our Opening EC meeting is July 14.
> > > That is
> > > 28 days prior, not the required 30 days. There is an exemption to
> > > this rule for Maintenance PARs, division of existing work
> items and
> > > similar routine items but that wouldn't apply to either of these.
> > >
> > > Also, you didn't supply the 5 criteria for either of these. That
> > > needs to be precirculated along with the PAR for any PAR that
> > > introduces new functionality - which both these PARs do.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, but I don't see how we can consider these PARs in July
> > > under our rules.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Pat
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> > > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
> > > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 1:49 PM
> > > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > > Subject: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
> > >
> > > All
> > >
> > > Here are two PARs for consideration at our closing plenary. They
> > > are from 802.11.
> > >
> > > James Gilb
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > 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.
> >
> >----------
> >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.