Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [EFM] What was the intent of Jackie Chan's motion made during the closi ng 802.3ah Plenary?


It is interesting to me that you imply that the outcome might have been different if everyone had been educated in game theory.  What is most curious is that you remind everyone how two negative votes had the potential to revamp the entire question, as was the case in the EPON timing motions (approve 1, fail; approve 2, fail; approve 1+2, fail; approve only one, pass; reconsider 1, fail; reconsider 2, pass). But, this "example" of how things might be voted in order to attempt to support two solutions occurred just before the EFM slow PHY votes. So, in point of fact, everyone had not just an education in game theory; not just a role play; they had a live demonstration.

Perhaps, just perhaps, those attending the meeting determined from the above (still fresh in the mind) experience that this same process would not ensure adoption of both EFM PHY solutions.

Perhaps, just perhaps, those attending the meeting saw/read/heard an committee enjoiner against not picking one and only one.

Perhaps, just perhaps, those who had previously abstained felt it was now time to make a choice.

Perhaps, just perhaps, there are 1000's of perhaps-es.

Personally, I believe that nothing was done wrong; the proceedings were fair; more than adequate time was provided for information and opinions to be vetted; there really was and there remains a consensus for the solution picked.

Come March, I will strongly recommend that 802.3 ratify this decision.


| -----Original Message-----
| From: FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| [mailto:FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
| Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 5:55 PM
| To:
| Subject: RE: [EFM] What was the intent of Jackie Chan's motion made
| during the closi ng 802.3ah Plenary?
| All,
| In all seriousness, there was a problem with the voting 
| format that was
| used.  Doing the votes serially, and in public, gave the 
| first option voted
| on an unfair advantage.  During the first vote, both sides 
| would contribute
| support, since that is the only way forward.  But, once the first vote
| succeeded, the voting membership could become much more 
| hard-nosed, since
| they had at least one option approved.  In other words, 
| voting NO no longer
| had the onus upon it that progress would be blocked.  Hence, 
| the second vote
| is more likely to fail.  
| Now, if everybody in the room was versed in game theory, then 
| this is fine,
| and both options will be voted down, if their support is equal.  
| How evenly the support was divided we will never know.  But, 
| as the order of
| voting was determined by a coin toss, one could say that the 
| EFM task force
| may have selected its line code by flipping a coin.  How quaint!    
| Personally, I don't mind the outcome, since it is obvious 
| that the network
| operators wanted SHDSL.  (Of course, the operators wanted the 
| timing values, but they were summarily dismissed on that one. 
|  Go figure.) 
| Of course, on the PON timing vote, we saw that both sides had 
| near equal
| support (~60% in favor for either).  Here, the voting 
| sequence also played
| an equal, but opposite role.  I think that the finally 
| approved motion got
| the critical 'over the top' support simply because it was the 
| last chance to
| dispose of the issue on that day.  I also note that the person who
| precipitated the re-testing of the two motions (Mr. Thatcher) 
| specifically
| asked for their re-consideration "in that order".  I think 
| Jonathan may have
| witnessed this happen before.    
| So, what can we learn from this?  Well, the order of voting 
| on motions such
| as these matters.  One could hope that perhaps a fairer 
| practice for voting
| on options could be formulated.  There are several systems 
| for this - just
| look at how political elections are held around the world.  
| Anyway, that's all I'm going to say.  For better or worse, 
| the questions are
| settled, and that is that.  
| Sincerely, 
| Frank Effenberger
| -----Original Message-----
| From: O'Mahony, Barry
| To: John M. Cioffi;;
| Cc: jacky@xxxxxxxxx
| Sent: 1/20/03 6:05 PM
| Subject: RE: [EFM] What was the intent of Jackie Chan's 
| motion made during
| the closi ng 802.3ah Plenary?
| John & Johnb,
| Just a note on the characterization that Behrooz was "not allowed" to
| speak, as some on this thread may have implied.  Behrooz' presentation
| was indeed on the meeting agenda, for the Copper sub-Task 
| Force.  Was it
| presented?  No.  I have to blame this on a new Copper sub-Task Force
| Chair (yours truly), and the stumblings that sometimes occur when a
| transition occurs between old and new Chairs.  In this case I wasn't
| completely familiar with the agenda, which had been drawn up 
| by the old
| Chair.
| Procedurally, please note that, prior to the closing of the Copper
| sub-Task Force meeting, I did ask if there was any further business to
| cover.  No one mentioned anything.  Strictly speaking, I should have
| explicitly asked Behrooz if he wished to present his presentation,
| although if anyone wished at that point to bring up the fact that his
| presentation had not been presented, they did indeed have the
| opportunity.  I've not known Behrooz to be particularly shy 
| and I'm sure
| he would have asked to present if he felt it was still necessary.
| --Barry
| -----Original Message-----
| From: John M. Cioffi [mailto:cioffi@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
| Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 1:07 PM
| To:;
| Cc: jacky@xxxxxxxxx
| Subject: Re: [EFM] What was the intent of Jackie Chan's motion made
| during the closi ng 802.3ah Plenary?
| All,
| 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.
| John Cioffi
| 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.
| >Regards,
| >
| >John
| 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
| cioffi@xxxxxxxxxxxx