Re: [802.3_OMEGA] 10 November PAR split discussion

[Yuji Watanabe <yuji.watanabe@xxxxxxx>]

Dear David,

Thank you for your input.

> With that said, during the discussion regarding the process to 'split' a PAR, I asked on multiple occasions if there was any objection to moving forward with looking at what it would take to 'split' the IEEE P802.3cz PAR. As nobody spoke up, I took this as nobody was objecting. From your email below, I believe you may now be objecting, that is your propagative.

I missed you asked TF for objection to split 802.3cz.  
My understanding was to discuss this topic in this week.
Therefore I was surprised to read the post from Bob.  
I sounds as if splitting 802.3cz was agreed. 

To 802.3cz attendees on Nov. 10th,

As I am not a native speaker, I may misunderstood what was discussed on Nov. 10th.
Please let me know how did you feel about the discussion on Nov. 10th.

Best regards,

Yuji Watanabe, AGC

-----Original Message-----
From: Law, David <dlaw@xxxxxxx> 
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2021 4:37 AM
To: STDS-802-3-OMEGA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_OMEGA] 10 November PAR split discussion

Dear Watanabe-san,

Subclause 3.4 'Operation of the Task Force' of the IEEE 802.3 Operations Manual says 'The operation of the TF has to be balanced between democratic procedures that reflect the desires of the TF members and the TF Chair's responsibility to produce a draft standard, recommended practice, or guideline in a reasonable amount of time for review and approval by the WG.'. My observation is that the IEEE P802.3cz Task Force is not on a path to produce a draft standard in a reasonable amount of time and therefore I believe it is in order for the IEEE P802.3cz Task Force Chair to explore options to meet his responsibility.

I observe proposals for two potential media under discussion, OM3 and GIPOF. I observe discussions that indicate that the GIPOF automotive fibre specification is still under development by IEC as well as discussion about the lack of GIPOF samples for testing. I don't observe similar discussions about OM3 fibre. I, therefore, conclude that the two potential media are on different timelines. As a result, I believe that the discussion of 'splitting' the PAR to enable the two proposals to progress on their respective timelines is reasonable.

I believe that most of the discussion earlier this week was about how to 'split' a PAR, for example, that dates for the necessary approvals by the IEEE 802.3 Ethernet Working Group, the IEEE 802 LMSC Standards Committee, and the IEEE-SA Standards Board (based on the recommendation from the IEEE-SA New Standards Committee (NesCom)). There wasn't, for example, any presentation of actual PAR, CSD, and Objectives documents that are required to 'split' the project, so I don't believe that 'splitting' IEEE P802.3cz should be thought an accomplished fact.

With that said, during the discussion regarding the process to 'split' a PAR, I asked on multiple occasions if there was any objection to moving forward with looking at what it would take to 'split' the IEEE P802.3cz PAR. As nobody spoke up, I took this as nobody was objecting. From your email below, I believe you may now be objecting, that is your propagative.

I would therefore like to make sure I understand what your concern is. Based on your email below it seems you would like to understand more about the process that would need to be followed to 'split' the IEEE P802.3cz PAR. Is that correct, and is there anything else that you would like to see addressed?

Thanks and best regards,
 David

-----

From: Yuji Watanabe <yuji.watanabe@xxxxxxx> 
Sent: 12 November 2021 05:47
To: STDS-802-3-OMEGA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_OMEGA] 10 November PAR split discussion

Bob,

Below mail arise a sense of discomfort in my mind.
Because it seems splitting PAR is an accomplished fact.
I discussed this matter with you off-line, but for almost all attendees, it is a very new topic.
We should discuss this topic in TF next week.

Best regards,

Yuji Watanabe, AGC

From: ROBERT GROW <mailto:bobgrow@xxxxxxx> 
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 12:12 AM
To: mailto:STDS-802-3-OMEGA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_OMEGA] 10 November PAR split discussion

Colleagues,

As those of you that attended the P802.3cz teleconference this on 10 Nov know, we had a free form discussion on what is involved in division of a project into two projects, also known as a PAR split.  I showed some slides related to the process, and those will be posted to the November meeting area if you wish to review them.  

As we discussed, anyone can provide input on what the project documents should look like.  Discussion of a PAR split is an appropriate topic for this reflector.  I’m happy to answer questions privately, or on this reflector, or in one of next week’s teleconferences.

 I was encouraged to start work on possible documents for consideration by the TF.  Mr. Law has already created a new draft PAR for me to use in myProject.  For any of you that might want to provide input to me or present themselves to the TF on this topic, here are pointers to resources you can use.  

1.  Our existing P802.3cz documents are linked on the TF home page:  https://www.ieee802.org/3/cz/.  

2.  Often when discussing a PAR and CSD, people use a template for presentation.  You will find templates for PAR, PAR Modification, and CSD linked from https://www.ieee802.org/3/WG_tools/templates/index.html.  
           a.  For example, the PAR template highlights the fields that are not automatically generated.  Project Scope and Need are considered the most important by many.  The template though highlights some other fields to think about.
           b.  Those of you that have been involved in other projects or in our discussions will note the importance of both the CSD questions that need to be answered, as well as the important that our approved CSD responses have for 802.3 members.
3.  There is no form for objectives, but one could certainly start with the P802.3 Objectives to consider what might need to be modified for what remains as the P802.3cz project or be used as a starting point for objectives for a new project.

At the risk of being redundant, once again, I’ll express my willingness to work with any of you on this, or to answer any questions you might have as we consider splitting the project.

Robert M. (Bob) Grow
Chair, P802.3cz Multi-Gigabit Optical Automotive Ethernet (OMEGA) Task Force

________________________________________
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 

________________________________________________________________________
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