RE: [EFM] What was the intent of Jackie Chan's motion made during the closing 802.3ah Plenary?
John and all
As Queen Elizabeth I (I of England and not of Scotland) once said, let's
not try to make windows into men's souls.
The facts are that the agenda for Monday meeting was announced many days in
advance and it was specifically communicated that we were to hear the
proponents on each side and to vote the LR copper PHY proposals
respectively up or down.
At the beginning of the Monday meeting, the chair clearly explained 4 or 5
times that each LR copper PHY motion would be voted up or down. The chair
held a coin toss to see who would choose to go first and, like the other
shoot out items, the motions would go up in the order of the presentations.
At the end of the meeting since there was a sense that some people wanted
to hear Behrooz's presentation, the chair asked if anyone wanted to give
it. No one stepped forward.
Personally, I have no insight into the intention behind Jackie's motion. It
seemed to have the form of a motion for the TF to ask the chair of the WG
that Behrooz's presentation be placed onto the agenda of the next meeting
of the 802.3 working group.
At 06:01 AM 1/15/2003 -0800, John.Egan@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Actually, Roy, the presentation not seen made the point that the two PHYs
>were both needed as each did not seem to meet the market's needs and
>seemed, to me, to imply that both alone did not meet the 5 criteria. My
>email must have given the wrong impression as I meant the presentation
>implied this, but I do not support this idea. The belief I had/have is
>that the PHYs needed to stand on their own merits individually. If,
>individually, they could not meet the criteria, they should be voted down.
>The voting on Monday was to consider each PHY on its own merits and if it
>met the 5 criteria.
>I, and a >75% majority on last Monday, agreed regarding SHDSL and voted it
>in as the LR PHY. As to ADSL, it had >40% count voting against it meeting
>the 5 criteria (as I understand the mood and reasoning behind the votes).
>I believe a majority, if not all, service providers at the meeting voted
>Yes for SHDSL and No for ADSL. Seems they gave a strong indication, just
>as the slide regarding Operator support was presented for SHDSL and the
>ADSL support slide showed no Operators...
>I believe there comes a point where the Task Force has to make decisions
>and move on. The January meeting was one of these times. I am fully behind
>getting to the same point with VDSL. There should be no "topic left open
>for further discussions" as this only impedes progress and makes it appear
>we are ineffective and unable to make a decision.
>I do not believe Behrooz's presentation as "finding a compromise" as you
>put it, but an attempt to make SHDSL appear weaker and to make ADSL appear
>stronger and to link both together in an attempt to get ADSL considered,
>as SHDSL was the favored PHY from as long ago as last May (boy, it does
>seem that we must take a long time against the same opposition to make
>progress here). As each was proposed as the PHY meeting the Long Reach
>Objective, then each should be considered individually, contrary to the
>gambit Behrooz decided on. There was no linkage before the meeting, only
>this attempt. If Behrooz had wanted his slides to be effective, I believe
>he should have included them in the batch of ADSL slides. Otherwise, his
>effort was a stand alone approach that did not coincide with the intent of
>the meeting, as established ahead of time.
>From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:33 AM
>To: Egan John (IFNA COM); firstname.lastname@example.org
>Subject: Re: [EFM] What was the intent of Jackie Chan's motion made
>during the closi ng 802.3ah Plenary?
>The reflector has sent this to me delayed by several days. But in reading
>it I had to make a comment. As an observer of the process, I think that
>you are correct in your observation that neither of the proposed SHDSL or
>ADSL phys will by themselves meet the objectives, including the five
>criteria. I think that what is happening is that the objective of a single
>PHY, one or the other, is being replaced in discussion with a dual PHY,
>SHDSL and ADSL. As an observer, I find that both are variants of xDSL and
>have have individual specific advantages in specific implementations that
>neither will have by themselves.
>Since I was not at Vancouver, I can not say what the mood of the group was
>toward the last of the meeting. It may be that having the notation, in the
>form of a motion, in the minutes that Behrooz's presentation was not made
>leaves the topic open of further discussion. Again, as an observer, I do
>not think that this necessarily a "black eye" for anyone. It simply means
>the topic has not been fully flushed out by all of the people involved.
>This is not new material. The attempt to adopt both variants is using all
>of the material that has been presented prior to the "cut off date", and
>not throwing away one or the other.
>Being an ex-service provider, I recognize the validity and need for both
>variants, where only one or the other variant will fail in one or more
>potential implementation markets. I think that it is a good thing that
>Behrooz is making the attempt to find a compromise by not dismission one or
>the other, but proposing that the 802.3ah TF adopt both as part of the
>Draft. I think it would be easier to sell including both at Sponsor Ballot
>than take the chance that it fail Sponsor Ballot because adopting only one
>would fail to meet the objectives and five criteria.
>At 10:04 PM 1/10/2003 -0800, John.Egan@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >I am still perplexed after hearing so many explanations...
> >What was the intent of Jackie Chan's motion presented during the closing
> >minutes of Thursday's 802.3ah TF Plenary? Was it really to present the
> >fact that Behrooz's presentation pitching both SHDSL and ADSL as only able
> >to meet the Long Reach Objective as a pair was not presented? I thought
> >the two PHYs were presented as they should have been... standing by
> >themselves and decided upon as standalone efforts. Otherwise, they should
> >neither have been selected, as they did not meet criteria.
> >I have been told the intent of the motion was to get entered into the
> >minutes the fact that Behrooz's presentation was not given and by doing so
> >this was a sort of black eye for Howard Frazier and Barry O'Mahony as
> >apparently every presentation submitted should be given a chance to be
> >presented, unless time considerations come into play. Is this a fact? Is
> >this "entering into the minutes" some sort of revenge or something by one
> >side? Will we then have the presentation, with accompanying motion
> >efforts, in March? I thought the Plenary had agreed that no new work would
> >be entertained. Are we going to continue fighting over what we already
> >decided on? I hope not.
> >By the way... there are many presentations that have been rejected and not
> >given over these past two years of EFM. I have I submitted from last March
> >(among many that were rejected) that proposed QAM VDSL to solve the Short
> >Reach PHY matter... but the presentation was shelved for good reason as
> >was too early in the process. Should I claim this "foul" as well and have
> >the whole effort bog down in foolish claims and non-productive fighting? I
> >will not and would respect those that feel the same and let us move ahead.
Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
Gigabit Systems Business Unit
170 West Tasman Drive
MS SJ H2
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
ip phone: 408-526-4534