| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Mark, I have always recognized that the job of a TF chair, like yours or John’s, is nearly impossible as you try to herd all the cats together. In empathy with the difficulty you face, there are times I wish my first instinct was to make your job just a little bit easier. Today was not one of those.
😊
Keep up the great work. Chris From: Mark Nowell (mnowell) <00000b59be7040a9-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Chris, I would ask you to please refrain from your approach of directly challenging Piers’ merit in submitting a comment. We have a process we follow, and Piers is following that process.
Similarly, we will follow the process to resolve the comment. We’ve posted a proposed response from the Editorial team which is a Proposed Reject. We will review the comment and the proposed
response and then start Task Force discussion to determine where the consensus exists within the Task Force on the resolution. As you point out we have spent a lot of Task Force time on the k limit topic over the many review cycles, so I believe we have a
lot of experience around it. One thing that I always admire about 802.3 work is that we are primarily a technical body and make decisions based on technical considerations. I expect this to be the case in resolving this
comment too. As you point out, in the absence of new supporting technical evidence, the Task Force will have to base its decision on that previous experience. But the merit of the comment itself is not in question here. Regards, Mark From: Chris Cole <chris.cole@xxxxxxxxx> Hi Piers, Your submitted comment, as the same previous comments on this subject, is technically flawed and is an abuse of the comment resolution process. During each comment resolution cycle, you keep bringing
up exactly the same debunked K limit theory, which has been rigorously shown in Task Force to be unrelated to PMD performance and for which you have presented no supporting data. You are comfortable to take up everyone’s’ time, yet are unwilling to invest
your own time to go in the lab and make measurements.
Chris From: Mark Nowell (mnowell) <00000b59be7040a9-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Colleagues, Ahead of tomorrow’s call, I’ve posted the received comment and proposed response here:
https://www.ieee802.org/3/cu/comments/index.html The files for tomorrow’s meeting are here:
https://www.ieee802.org/3/cu/public/Dec20/
Talk to you tomorrow. Regards, Mark From: "Mark Nowell (mnowell)" <00000b59be7040a9-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Dear Colleagues, Our D3.2 recirculation closed this past weekend, and we received a comment. David Law will send out the formal notification of results shortly, but I wanted to give everyone a quick heads up
that we will be holding the Task Force Interim meeting on Wed 12/2 @ 7am PT as previously announced in order to address this comment. The meeting invitation and Webex details were sent out to the reflector previously but they can also be found at either of these places: https://www.ieee802.org/3/cu/public/Dec20/call_info.html
https://www.ieee802.org/3/calendar.html We will get the received comment and proposed response posted as soon as possible. Regards, Mark To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1 |