| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hello Bob, Regarding your below e-mail, may I confirm what you mean? > I as TF Chair announced that future presentation and discussion on these previously discussed topics may be deemed by the TF Chair as out of scope because of our PAR,
CSD responses and Objectives. Do you mean that you will deem a new presentation about additional technical data about GI-POF as out of scope of 802.3cz? If your answer is yes, I have objection to your idea. As I already presented in the TF, my proposal has both 980nm + OM3 channel and 850nm + GI-POF channel in the same document. I believe this is within our Objectives because they are under the same draft. In addition, clause 9 in IEEE 802 WG P&P states how to show objection to technical decision.
I think this is a procedural matter, rather than technical, and I feel something strange to apply this clause to this matter. Best regards, From: ROBERT GROW <bobgrow@xxxxxxx>
Colleagues, As obvious to participants during our September interim teleconferences, we have been discussing for some time alternate PMDs that could be included in our draft. We have also discussed if some of these suggested PMD
types are within the scope our objectives; or if we were to include multiple PMDs as alternatives if doing so would be consistent with our approved CSD response to the Distinct Identity criterion. There also has been discussion about proposals being consistent
with other CSD criteria and the principles embodied in the CSD questions. (Our approved PAR, CSD responses, and Objectives are linked from the TF home page www.ieee.org/3/cz.) I as TF Chair announced that future presentation and discussion on these previously discussed topics may be deemed by the TF Chair as out of scope because of our PAR, CSD responses and Objectives. On these topics deemed
out of scope, discussion and presentation will only be allowed in the context of motions to modify one or more of the project documents defining our scope of work. There was an objection to the above scope of work enforcement during the September interim meeting. For clarity, I will add to what was discussed during our teleconferences. The announced procedure to limit discussion
to our approved scope of work does not preclude: 1. When the person chairing a meeting makes a ruling during the meeting, Roberts Rules of Order allows for appeal of the decision of the Chair (web search: Roberts Rules appeal decision of the Chair). For example if
the TF Chair rules a presentation out of order for inclusion on the list of presentations during a meeting, it would be appropriate to appeal the decision of the Chair during discussion of approval of the Agenda. 2. Any participants wishing to dispute this procedure to stick to our approved scope of work are also advised to consult the IEEE 802 WG P&P (https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/21/ec-21-0207-21-0PNP-ieee-802-lmsc-working-group-policies-and-procedures.pdf,
especially Clause 9 Appeals and Clause 10 Rights). I also am open to private discussions with anyone concerned. Simnilarly, participants are able to bring any objections or comment on how I am conducting TF business to the attention of the WG Chair. Robert M. (Bob) Grow To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1 |