|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Page 1 is never sent with the contribution. It fits no organizations format except our own, and there are even times that it isn’t posted on Mentor. In this case it was because I need to go to RSPG web site and find the final format to be used.
Page 2 – your suggestions are improvements and of course will be included.
Page 3 – likewise with page 3.
Page 4 – your suggestion is accepted.
Page 5 – I do not want to re-ignite the debate about who signs what. While the document showed my signature (which has been the case beginning sometime in 2005) I was going to leave that to Paul to decide. Likewise I am not certain that the RSPG will want anything further than an email address (Ofcom and others are that way). So again this will depend on what the RSPG format calls for. Indeed in a conference call with Paul, myself and staff it was decided against adding personal addresses. However the “New Jersey” address was not determined. As the call went it would be used by either Paul or myself and was not at this time including ITU-R contributions.
So, with the exception of “address details” which may be driven by the recipient’s (RSPG’s) format requirements, in the case of Page 5 let’s leave it to Paul to decide whose name appears. As Dave Ringle said in an email to me on March 22nd after reviewing the 802 P&P, “3.4.1 f) states that the Sponsor Chair can delegate necessary functions. I assume that this could include having you sign the statements and list yourself as the contact point. But, I would assume that there would be some sort of documentation from Nikolich (maybe in some EC meeting minutes) that discuss this delegation.” Let’s not argue the point here, the final decision really does appear to be Paul’s.
Presuming that the above meets the requirements you mention below I will change you (and James) to approve. As of today that would make the vote count 11/0/1.
I vote Disapprove but would switch to Approve if the attached comments were incorporated.
Regarding my three points below:
(1) Within 8.2, the document can only be considered under 8.2.1. It does not meet the requirements for 8.2.2 approval.
(2) I object to the posting of review documents that are marked as IEEE 802 positions but aren't marked as a draft.
(3) I believe that the draft was not approved by 802.18 because the teleconference was not properly noticed and therefore invalid. However, by the terms of 8.2.1, approval by 802.18 is irrelevant.