Re: [EFM] What was the intent of Jackie Chan's motion made during the closi ng 802.3ah Plenary?
I did a little research as on the heated note below, which appears to
confuse a few things:
First, Jackie Chan is a martial-arts movie star who may give
a few black-eyes here and there on film (not sure if those
alleged below have black eyes or not or are movie stars)
However, after some investigation and guessing I found
the person who made the motion is Dr. Jacky S. Chow of
Astri in Hong Kong (not the movie starr Jackie Chan).
Dr. Chow is apparently not on the exploder, so
did not know of discussions and requests.
He told me he was simply interesting in seeing the presentation --
he was not sure why old Behrooz was so intimidating that he could not
be allowed to speak. I've known Jacky for 15 years and never
seen him give anyone a black eye, but he does do outstanding
work with exceptional diligence.
I hope that clears the questions/confusion raised.
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.
John M. Cioffi
Hitachi America Professor of Electrical Engineering
363 Packard Electrical Engineering Bldg.
350 Serra Mall
Stanford, CA 94305-9515
+1-650-723-2150 Fax: +1-650-724-3652