|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Thank you for your advice here. In most regards, I need all of it I can get. However, in this case the May 30th date did incorporate about a week of margin, so the early close provision is not necessary.
I will save this as a reference for future submissions where we do not have the luxury.
Director, Global Spectrum Strategy
Board Director, Dynamic Spectrum Alliance
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Chair Emeritus, IEEE 802.11af WLAN in TVWS
Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum & Regulatory Task Group
From: Pat Thaler [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Since you need to transmit the contribution by May 30 which is less than 10 days from when you started the ballot, I assume that you want to invoke the provision for early close in LMSC OM 4.1.2. However your email doesn't explicitly say that.
LMSC OM 4.1.2 required that the motion state that early close is intended: "Ballots where the possibility of an early close exists must be clearly marked accordingly. Otherwise, the tally of votes shall not be made until at least 24 hours after the close of the ballot to allow time for delivery of the e-mail votes."
Please send a correction that includes text such as: "Early close: As required in subclause 4.1.2 'Voting rules' of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Operations Manual, this is notice that this ballot may close early once sufficient responses are received to clearly decide a matter."
I approve the motion.
I have a couple of editorial questions about the contribution.
1. Why is the light wavelength range written 10,000 nm to 190 nm instead of 190 nm to 10,000 nm? It appears that way in both the contribution and the suggested edits to the report. 2.1 of the report has the more usual order of <smaller value> to <larger value> when defining the wavelength range of visible light.
2. The text inserted into 4. of the report includes "IEEE 802 believes" regarding position on visible light being license-exempt. Wouldn't we want the report to state that as the conclusion of the report; rather than as an IEEE 802 belief? Perhaps a cut and paste error as the same text appears in the contribution.
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Kennedy, Rich <email@example.com> wrote: