|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
I am having a lot of reservations of moving away from the 5 Criteria.
Simply put the 5 Criteria have brand value – people know what they mean. It is something that I personally feel is ingrained in our participants, and people outside of the IEEE have some perceived knowledge of them as well.
I believe the last proposed “Co-existence” criteria text is in EC-13-0009-00. James, please correct me if I am wrong. It reads -
State the plan for addressing coexistence.
a) Will the WG create a CA document as part of the WG balloting process? (yes/no)
b) If not, explain why the CA document is not applicable.
The 5 Criteria are the basis for determining whether to forward a PAR or not. The text above reads more as a requirement for a PAR that has already been approved, not a criteria. Furthermore, what does a proposed project have to co-exist with? I suspect that this is WG specific. Therefore, I would argue that it should be left to individual WGs to determine this requirement, and the specific WG can then make it part of the specific WG process.
In its current wording, I have no clue how I would answer this from my specific WG. Therefore, it would probably get a meaningless NA answer that does nothing to assist the group in determining whether a PAR should be approved. From my own WG perspective I would also argue that if it could not co-exist then it would impact the broad market potential of the project.
Therefore, in its current form, I would have to vote against this proposal. Furthermore, I believe that we should really consider the brand value of the 5C, and should seek to preserve it.