|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
First I agree that this ballot is needed and I support it.
Second I also support Pat's proposed edits to clarify the intent.
Sent from my Windows 8.1 Phone
From: Shellhammer, Steve
Sent: 1/25/2016 14:13
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Email Ballot +++ Approval of Liaison to WFA +++ Early Close
Thanks. I believe that Paul could have editorial license to make the text clearer. So if once the ballot is complete he could choose to make small edits as needed.
Roger, reading carefully, it is asking whether WFA would be interested in participating in such a standardization project and, if so, when they would have documents ready to submit.
It isn’t actually asking for contributions.
I think this sentence could be clearer as it seems more oriented toward asking for contributions rather than interest in future contributions:
“The 802.19 Working Group participants are interested in receiving inputs from the aforementioned groups that can be publicly shared among the 802 participants with the objective of producing a generalized inter-device/system coexistence test methodology using the IEEE 802 open standards development process.”
(It also has the somewhat unusual phrasing of saying that the WG participants are interested rather than saying that the WG is interested. It would be more usual for us to speak for the Working Group as a whole, not the WG participants.)
That sentence could have been worded better, but I think it is okay.
With some reservations as I think the start of the second paragraph doesn’t fit in well with what is being requested at the end of that paragraph and in the next paragraph, I vote approve.
Disapprove. (It won’t matter to the approval, since I don’t believe that 8.1.1 specifies a supermajority requirement.)
I think the statement is asking for contributions of documentation to be considered as the basis of standardization (“using the IEEE 802 open standards development process”). To my knowledge, we don’t have a PAR for that. I think it’s a little misleading to ask for contributions, which we will make public, while giving the impression that those contributions will be going toward a standard, without providing notice that we are not authorized to develop such a standard.
[Steve: Yesterday, I accidentally sent this message in response to the 3GPP liaison ballot; please maintain my original vote as Approve on that one.]