Re: [802SEC] 802.11 PARs for Friday's agenda
I will second
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:36 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: 802.11 PARs for Friday's agenda
Paul -
So moved.
Regards,
Tony
At 19:17 17/06/2008, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>All,
>
>I suggest the EC consider the two 802.11 PARs following the normal
>PAR procedure if and only if the EC explicitly grants the 802.11 WG
>chair a reduction of the 30 day circulation requirement to 28 days
>for the two 802.11 PARs via an EC email ballot on a motion
>requesting the requirement reduction.
>
>I'm not sure what the approval threshold for a rule waiver is per
>RR, but I would require a >3/4 approval threshold (with all voting
>EC members in the denominator).
>
>I'll start an EC email ballot if someone is willing to make a motion
>and find a second.
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Kraemer" <bkraemer@MARVELL.COM>
>To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:54 AM
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
>
>
>>Tony,
>>
>>You've raised a number of points that I accept going forward and would
>>certainly pledge to avoid any repeat offences.
>>
>>Much of what you refer to should be captured in what I might refer to as
>>a "Chair's guide document" that collects standard practices that
>>augment rules and procedures not otherwise covered in either the P&P or
>>the OM.
>>
>>With your permission I'll take the material below and start a chapter on
>>this topic for further consideration prior to or during the July
>>plenary.
>>
>>Bruce
>>
>>-----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.
>
>----------
>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.