| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi George, Thanks for preparing the draft FAQ on Procedural versus Technical. We had a few questions on the FAQ. Question 4 In the answer the document states “… or if it makes no change to the draft without a technical statement as to why no change is necessary, the group has not actually taken a technical action.” Is that suggesting that if a Technical Comment is submitted, that it can be rejected without a technical reason to reject the comment? Is that lack of consensus based on the group’s technical opinion? Does approval of that resolution require 50% or 75% approval? Question 5 In the answer it states: “consensus on the reason doesn’t matter, only consensus on the change.” Does that mean that the CRG can provide a resolution (since there is a consensus) without a reason (since there is no consensus)? Question 8 The answer indicates that if there is no consensus to approve or reject a comment then it is to be rejected with the reason being “no consensus.” Is there a reference to where this is stated in the rules? Summary Could the FAQ essentially be summarized to say that 75% motions are tried on comments and when they fail, this is recorded in the minutes, and the default disposition is rejected for lack of consensus (without a vote). The chair may decide when sufficient 75% votes have been tried. Regards, Steve and Menzo
From: ***** IEEE 802 LAN-MAN Standards Committee ***** <STDS-802-LMSC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2026 7:47 AM To: STDS-802-LMSC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-LMSC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [802-LMSC] Revised review draft of FAQ of 'technical vs. procedural considerations..."
All - I made a number of revisions to include formatting and references as requested, as well as additional matter which had been suggested by reviewers, which I had verbally mentioned during yesterday's LMSC call.
I have additionally included in the header that this is still a review draft, as our chair, Mr. Gilb noted he had not yet accepted it as an interpretation, and, of course, that the source documents, and in some cases RevCom/SASB review will govern.
The revised draft for review can be found at
https://mentor.ieee.org/802-lmsc/dcn/26/lmsc-26-0248-01-LMSC-faq-on-procedural-vs-technical-considerations-specifically-with-regards-to-comment-resolution.pdf
I will note that this is getting about as long and deep as I would like - and I would suggest resisting efforts to get more lengthy, as one can just go and read the referenced sections of the source documents - which are the primary material anyways.
George Zimmerman, Ph.D. President & Principal CME Consulting, Inc. Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications 310-920-3860
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-LMSC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-LMSC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-LMSC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-LMSC&A=1 |