Re: [802SEC] PARs under consideration at the NOV09 plenary
Geoff,
Thanks. I plan to have a recorded vote. So the only open question I have is the issue that you and Tony are discussing about whether it is one vote for the PAR/5C or one vote for the PAR and multiple votes for the 5C. We will do whatever Paul requests, we just want to understand the expectations before the vote.
Regards,
Steve
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 3:21 PM
To: tony@jeffree.co.uk
Cc: Shellhammer, Steve; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] PARs under consideration at the NOV09 plenary
Steve-
Actually what Geoff will tell you is:
1) Follow the procedures
2) Do so in a sufficiently bulletproof way that there can be no criticism of how you did it when you get to the EC
Which is why Geoff would advise you to always have a recorded vote of your group in support of any motion that you bring to the EC.
Best regards,
Geoff
On 10/30/09 2:39 PM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
Steve -
As Geoff will tell you, follow the procedures.
Regards,
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
Sent: 30 October 2009 20:34
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [802SEC] PARs under consideration at the NOV09 plenary
Paul,
To avoid confusion for some of us who will be having votes in Atlanta confirming a
PAR/5C can you please provide precise answers to the following two questions?
1. What is the rule regarding how the WG shall approve a PAR/5C and what information
needs to be provided to the EC?
2. What additional information beyond #1 you are requesting that we provide?
Thanks,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 12:26 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [802SEC] PARs under consideration at the NOV09 plenary
Geoff -
As far back as I can remember, there has NEVER been any requirement for a WG to perform or
present separate votes on each of the 6 items you list, neither is it a stated or implied
requirement of our operating rules that we do so. Neither is there any requirement in our
rules that we report on the anticipated number of individuals and corporations that will
actively participate in "teh" development.
Notwithstanding the above, if what you are expecting me (and the other WGs that have draft
PARs) to do is to run 6 separate motions and votes in my closing Plenary on the PAR text
and the separate 5C items, then you are going to be disappointed.
I agree with you that EC review of proposed projects is one of the (if not THE) ECs most
serious duties, and that the 5C are not pro-forma items, but making the process more
onerously bureaucratic is not the way to ensure that it is taken seriously.
Regards,
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: 30 October 2009 01:49
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [802SEC] PARs under consideration at the NOV09 plenary
Colleagues-
An "estimate" is not good enough for me and it shouldn't be good enough
for the EC as a whole.
We have required numerical votes on project paperwork for years.
I will vigorously speak in opposition to any PAR that is proposed for EC
vote without SEPARATE numerical votes for each of the following items
that is to be presented to the EC
WG numerical vote on the final PAR text
WG vote on the responses to the Broad Market Potential criteria
WG vote on the responses to the Technical Feasibility criteria
WG vote on the responses to the Economic Feasibility criteria
WG vote on the responses to the Compatibility criteria
WG vote on the responses to the Distincy Identity criteria
Report on the anticipated number of individuals and corporations
that will actively participate in teh development
I consider the EC review of proposed projects to be one of our most
seriouis duties. In particular, the 5 Criteria are not just a pro-forma
paper exercise. They are to be taken as a serious examination of the
justification for the project.
If there is any PAR that doesn't have the numbers at this point, there
is no reason that they can't be gathered during the Atlanta Plenary.
Best regards,
Geoff
On 10/29/09 3:47 PM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
Dear EC Members,
There are a lot of PARs under consideration in November. One of the key data points I'd
like to see is the level of WG support for each of the PARs. Please provide the EC the
numerical results (approve/disappove/abstain) of the WG votes on the motions supporting
the PAR/5Cs. If the vote was not numerically recorded--e.g., unanimous approval, please
provide an estimate of the number of WG members present at the time of the vote.
Regards,
--Paul
----------
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.