Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] July 2014 802 EC taskforce minutes uploaded

FYI: The P&P changes that were approved by ProCom/SASB are noted in the June 2013 ProCom minutes, item 6.2 (see

David L. Ringle
Director, IEEE-SA Governance
IEEE Standards Association
445 Hoes Lane                              
Piscataway, NJ  08854-4141 USA
TEL: +1 732 562 3806
FAX: +1 732 875 0524               

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Geoff Thompson <> wrote:

I want to congratulate Adrian on coming up with a scary and effective way to get folks to review the minutes.
I know the open references in the list below drove me to go back and see what I allegedly agreed to.

Regarding #2, I don't think I offered to work on a solution, that is a ProCom/RevCom issue.

I was merely pointing out that there seemed to be a significant potential for "Public Review" (with a 60 day ballot period) to lengthen the time that it takes tightly managed 802 draft projects to go through the Sponsor Ballot cycle.  

Whether or not this is actually the case seems to not be defined at this point because (as far as I know) there is no defined procedure in the SASB P&P for how to deal with Public Review comments that come in after close of initial Sponsor Ballot but meet the Public Review deadline.

If the deadline doesn't mean anything, as is effectively the case on comments we receive on international ballots from SC 6, then the comments can just be treated as input to our maintenance process.  However, I somehow doubt that will be the case.  JTC1 comments are entirely outside the scope of RevCom review.  I don't think failure to address Public Review comments can escape the RevCom review process if the SA wishes to keep its ANSI accreditation.  Therefore, we need actual procedures on what the review requirements are for a RevCom submittal package so we can assess the possible impact on the time it takes to get from opening of Sponsor Ballot to RevCom package submittal.

Staff did not seem to have crisply defined material in that area.

I am happy to take the action item to review such material and
- Report/critique on whether it is fully defined
- Report on whether it will impact our schedules
- Report on whether I see any problems with the system and its P&P

Clearly, this is a problem/requirement that appears to go well beyond the scope of what have been classified and handled as "rogue" comments in the past.



On Jul 25, 2014, at 2:50 AMPDT, Stephens, Adrian P <Adrian.P.Stephens@INTEL.COM> wrote:

Tentative minutes are here:

Summary of Actions

Note that time ran out in the meeting, so there wasn’t time to review this, and (in particular) assign due dates.
1.       Geoffrey Thompson to assist Karen McCabe to find a way to represent views of the constituency (i.e., IEEE members, IEEE-SA project members) on this topic.
2.       Soo Kim to alert appropriate body (Yvette, Dave Ringle) that this might cause significant issues for 802 standards publication / progressions.   To consult with Geoffrey Thompson on a suggested approach.
3.       Paul Nikolich to advertise that Jon Rosdahl is the person to submit change/enhancements to these tools to.
4.       Christina Boyce to report stats on use of

5.       Christina Boyce to write down description of mechanism she described used to evaluate user experience.

Best Regards,
USA Mobile: +1 (408) 239 7485
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47
---------- 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.