Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] Meeting July 19 2016, Motion on rejecting for insu

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

Dear Dorothy,

I voted against the motion to reject a list of CIDs today. My reasoning was simple, in every case but one, in the spreadsheet there was an Assignee against the CID. I know we are against the wall timewise, but if there is an assignee, then unless the assignee has indicated that no submission is forthcoming, then there must be opportunity for a submission on the CID to be discussed. If there are no related submissions at the time that the Chair has allocated time for CID discussion to that assignee, then maybe I could agree that as a timely submission has not been forthcoming then the CID can be rejected. I do not think that that is the case yet.

I also note that some of the CIDs do have quite detailed proposed changes and in most cases were technical changes, so the ruling that these were ‘editorial’ was a stretch. Plus, if we start to strictly apply a rule that the change must be in full detail to even get assigned or considered, then a lot of vital changes to the Standard may well be lost. I always assumed that if I stated “commenter will make a submission” or similar, then that was OK.

Yes, I know we are up against a time barrier and I really hope that the assignees take this into consideration and maybe do drop some on this list, but they should be given the opportunity to make that decision themselves.

Hence, I do support the objection to the ruling that the Motion passed and would dearly love the BRC to reconsider.

Thanks

Graham

IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] Meeting July 19 2016, Motion on rejecting for insufficient detail