Re: [802SEC] [STDS-802-3] Availability of IEEE P1905.1 Convergent Digital Home Network for Heterogeneous Technologies draft
I can't disagree with what you have said.
On the other hand we have established interfaces and they are building
new ones and they voted to rebuff our input in the past.
The fact that we are trying to work with them is evidence of good faith
on our part.
The fact that we have a pool of folks who actually know what they are
doing in these areas who are willing to review their draft is evidence
of good faith on our part.
It would be appropriate of them to put forth a quid pro quo.
Opening the scope of their recirc would be a good sign in that direction.
Our our side I would strongly urge that our comments be tempered in text
and in A/C vs. Dis as to what we think is essential to fixing things
that are broken vs. just things that reflect our opinion on how a
standard should be done.
What I don't want is to wait until it's too late before they state in
some substantial way how we are going to move forward. That could make
things unpleasant. I don't want that to happen.
On 248//12 2:55 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:
Since I've been working with P1905.1 closely, I think I've got a reasonable understanding of their willingness to cooperate.
What we have is a situation where A saw an action of B that it interpreted as hostile so A treats B as hostile. B sees those actions as hostile and treats A as hostile. A feedback loop is created where A and B treat each other with hostility. Each looks at the actions of the other and interprets them with the expectation that they are hostile seeing that even when it isn't there. The more each side sees the other do the same the more the behavior is reinforced. We've seen this process more than once in the past. Continuing that behavior on both sides will not improve the situation. (I'm not making any assumptions on who is A and who is B in the current situation or on whether the initial action was really hostile or just interpreted that way - it doesn't matter.)
I've been working to break that cycle and bring folks together for reasonable discussions instead of lobbing hostile messages and have had success in the areas I tackled. Therefore, I suggest that we:
Submit comments on anything that we see as broken (including
items that break interoperability with devices that implement
IEEE 802 standards).
Work with P1905.1 participants to help them understand our
concerns and develop mutually acceptable resolutions.
I'm not suggesting that we submit out of scope comments to improve things that are okay but could be better, but if something is broken let's give P1905.1 a chance to fix it with our help.
Diplomacy can work when a hammer doesn't. When approached on the basis above, P1905.1 has been reasonable.
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 2:19 PM
To: Pat Thaler
Cc: 802 EC; Steve Mills
Subject: Re: [802SEC] [STDS-802-3] Availability of IEEE P1905.1 Convergent Digital Home Network for Heterogeneous Technologies draft
If the next time we see a draft is when the recirculation ballot is opened
The scope of the recirculation is limited to the changes, etc.,
our only recourse is to:
- Give up
- Limit our criticism to the areas strictly within the scope of
disapproves from a balloting group that lacked openness
- Try to force an additional recirculation of the scope that I
recommended via RevCom& the SASB
- Submit our comments that are out of scope and just hope that a group
that has been hostile to outside input will just roll over.
- Try to negotiate the ability to change a draft with the WG when
they're ready to go to RevCom
(a position of considerable weakness on our part)
- Try to get SASB to turn it down altogether (fat chance)
This set of choices would seem to be bad for the future of a) their
standard in terms of its chances for success or b) our standards should
they succeed. Most likely it would be a combination of the two which
would just confuse the market.
Perhaps the bluntness of my analysis does not aid your efforts "on
improving the interaction" for that I beg your forgiveness for my lack
of diplomatic language. That, however, is the situation as I see it from
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.