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

[HSSG] Continuation of HSSG for "serial" PARs


I received the attached request from Mr. D'Ambrosia (HSSG Chair).  He
requests a ruling from the WG Chair.  I will defer on providing a
"ruling", but instead attempt to make my reading/interpretation of the
rules governing this HSSG issue clear.  I defer a ruling, because the
absence of clear rules for this case might produce a different ruling
depending on the specific motion implementing the described strategy.  

The attached analysis and opinions should provide reinforcement of
alternate rules interpretations to mine which highlights the risk of
embarking on a controversial procedural course.  The statement of my
interpretation of the rules should provide guidance to participants on
how I might rule on a specific motion in an 802.3 meeting.  The analysis
also include my recommendations (not WG Chair's directives) on how the
HSSG might proceed.

I plan to attend the Ottawa meetings and will make myself available if a
Q&A as John describes would be useful.

Nothing in this message or attached analysis should be construed as
indicating support or opposition for any capability or technology
alternative; but simply serve as an overview of how I read the rules
governing the issue of proposed objectives and how they might be
included in PARs.

For those that don't want to wade through the detail, here is a very
basic summary.  Please read the attached detailed analysis if you want
to winge, argue, contradict, seek elucidation or otherwise engage me in
discussion about my opinions and analysis that led to them.  

1.  I believe both LMSC P&P, 7.4, and 802.3 Rules, 4.1, must be
considered as well as the July motion that chartered the HSSG.  

2.  Considering these three referenced items only one thing seems very
clear, that the alternative of SG continuation for "serial" PARs wasn't
anticipated (i.e., clearly allowed by rules and motion).  So the TF, WG
and EC must specifically allow s "serial" PAR plan, else the multiple
viable interpretations create uncertainty of Chair's and
Parliamentarian's rulings resulting in differing interpretations at the
EC than from the WG Chair.  

3.  The lack of rules clarity also creates fertile ground for an appeal
(something we all hopefully wish to avoid) to such a ruling without
specific clear defensible motions to allow such a plan.  .

4.  It would be my very strong recommendation that HSSG participants
seek necessary approvals that allow a clear course for continued study
rather than looking for a loophole in the rules, or invoke the CFI
process for continued study of higher speed capabilities.

Bob Grow
Chair, IEEE 802.3

 <<Continuation analysis and opinion.pdf>>  <<RE: Request Review>> 

Continuation analysis and opinion.pdf


Per July 2006, Motion #23:

Move the IEEE 802.3 Working Group requests formation of a "Higher Speed Study Group" to evaluate definition of greater than 10 Gb/s MAC data rate and related PHY capability to IEEE Std 802.3.  The Study Group may recommend one or more PARs.

This motion had been interpreted to mean that it would be permissible for the SG to complete its task of "evaluating definition of greater than 10 Gb/s MAC data rate and related PHY capability to IEEE Std 802.3" by serially issuing PARs, which would have the SG requesting an extension after each meeting where a PAR (or PARs) was considered until the Task had been completed or the 802.3 WG would not approve any further extensions.  At the March Plenary it was brought up that the LMSC P&P could be interpreted that this is prohibited, as Section 7.4 states:  "After the Study Group recommendations have been accepted by the parent body, the Study Group will be disbanded no later than the end of the next Plenary Session."  

Given the differing interpretations, I request your ruling regarding the IEEE rules and the SG's ability to request an extension for continuance of the SG after it had brought forward a PAR or PARs simultaneously for consideration at a given IEEE 802.3 WG meeting.

Also, if it is found that the SG may not exist beyond this stated meeting, what other avenues might be considered if it is found that the SG wishes to continue studying a matter for possible recommendation as a PAR?  

Given that this decision might influence some SG members' viewpoints on how the group should proceed; I would appreciate a response from you to the HSSG reflector.   Also, if there are alternatives for consideration and you are attending the April Interim, I would like to put aside 15 minutes on the schedule for the SG to be able to ask any further questions of you regarding other alternative courses.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,









From: Grow, Bob [] 
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 3:10 PM
To: John DAmbrosia;
Subject: RE: Request Review




If you want a ruling, I need need to know specifically what is is you are asking a ruling about and how/when you want the ruling delivered.





From: John DAmbrosia [] 
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:26 AM
To: Grow, Bob;
Subject: RE: Request Review


Given the different interpretations and your [very accurate] assessment that the rules were not designed for this, it would seem appropriate to me to request this as a ruling from you, rather than as me presenting a summary of our discussion.  


Thanks to both of you for all your help on this matter.





From: Grow, Bob [] 
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 2:13 PM
Cc: John DAmbrosia
Subject: RE: Request Review




Independent of our slightly different interpretation of a first PAR triggering the "normal function" termination criteria,.and which rule is the tightest, our difference illustrates an observation and conclusion of mine.  The rules weren't designed for this and and therefore, the outcome of an appeal (if there were to be one) is less predictable.  





From: [] 
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 4:54 AM
To: Grow, Bob
Cc: John DAmbrosia
Subject: RE: Request Review

Hi Bob, 

While I agree with most of the points I've seen in this thread I'm not too sure I agree with the summary I see below. The IEEE 802.3 rules state in subclause 4.1 'Function' that 'The function of a Study Group is to complete a defined task with specific output and in a specific time frame established within which they are allowed to study the subject. Once this task is complete the function of the SG is complete and its charter expires.'. There is then some text in relationship to the normal function of a Study Group but I don't believe that the HSSG is one of those cases so I wont repeat that text. 

Now the motion that chartered the Study Group reads 'Move the IEEE 802.3 Working Group requests formation of a "Higher Speed Study Group" to evaluate definition of greater than 10 Gb/s MAC data rate and related PHY capability to IEEE Std 802.3. The Study Group may recommend one or more PARs.' 

I'm therefore more of the opinion that there is a defined task, 'evaluate definition of greater than 10 Gb/s MAC data rate and related PHY capability to IEEE Std 802.3', specific output, in this case 'one or more PARs', but no defined timeline. I therefore think under the 802.3 rules serial PARs, for the want of a better expression, are okay. I do however agree that this doesn't seem to be permitted by the 802 rules - or at least they are every unclear on this - because of the 'After the Study Group recommendation(s) has been accepted by the parent body, the Study Group will be disbanded' language - and of course that the 802 rules override the 802.3 rules in the case of a conflict. 

I also agree that we can't call this a 'finding' - just what the some 802.3 officers think - or what the 802.3 Chair rules. Since I don't believe there is any interpretation process for the 802 P&P isn't the only way to get an actually 'finding' is to have an appeal - something I'm not suggesting we do. 


"Grow, Bob" <> wrote on 30/03/2007 23:23:12:

> John:

> Your choice of language is rather authoritative (e.g., "finding").
> Personally, I'd soften it up.  If I'm asked for an decision, ruling or
> finding as WG Chair, I should provide that answer directly, not have you
> send it to the group.  Also, I haven't seen anything from David, so even
> though his silence probably indicates he doesn't disagree (assuming he
> has had the time to read the thread), associating his name with my
> opinions without explicit agreement is a bit presumptuous.

> I'd personally say things less formally.  You can credit the opinions to
> me or to a consensus from discussions with 802.3 leadership.  I've
> edited below, take edits as suggestions they aren't directives.

> --Bob

> ________________________________

> From: John DAmbrosia []
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:55 PM
> To: Grow, Bob;
> Subject: Request Review

> Bob / David,

> I would greatly appreciate if you would take a moment to review the
> following text that I would like to send to the HSSG reflector regarding
> the issue of continuation of the SG to consider recommending additional
> PARs after a first PAR was submitted.  Your review of this based on the
> provided guidance would be appreciated.

> Thanks in advance!

> John

> ________________________________________________________________________
> ____________________

> Dear HSSG Members,

> At the March Plenary various options on how the SG might proceed were
> considered.  One of the options discussed was for the SG to recommend
> PARs in a serial fashion as long as the WG would continue to approve the
> extension of the SG.  An issue was raised that this option is prohibited
> by the IEEE Project 802 LMSC Policies and Procedures (See
>   After researching
> this and discussing it with Bob Grow (Chair of 802.3) [optionally 802.3
> leadership], this option must be evaluated not only against the LMSC
> P&P, but also the 802.3 Rules (See
> and the July 2006
> plenary motion that chartered the HSSG.  One initial observation is that
> this approach is not anticipated by the procedures.

> The consensus is [if you would rather use "Bob's opinion is" that would
> be acceptable] that if the HSSG had a PAR or PARs considered in July,
> normal schedule would have them approved at the September IEEE-SA
> Standards Board meeting , and  the SG would terminate at that time (per
> the 802.3 Rules).

> If the HSSG would desire to continue study on higher speed capabilities
> not included in the PAR or PARs considered in July, we discussed two
> study group continuation options.   The first option would be to pursue
> the extension of the HSSG via suspension of the 802.3 rules (75% vote of
> the 802.3 WG).   This would also need to be approved by the EC (possibly
> requiring suspension of the LMSC P&P).  The second option would be to
> request a CFI at the July plenary to form a  "new" study group on items
> requiring additional study.  The relative merits of either approach are
> left to the individual to consider.

> This will be a key matter for the April Interim.  I encourage all to use
> the HSSG reflector to discuss the below alternatives, the first three
> are allowed under the 802 LMSC Policies and Procedures, 802.3 Operating
> rules, and  HSSG  charter motion , the fourth seems to require some
> special procedural actions as described above.

> *       Super Project - everything in one PAR

> *       Super Project -  split out efforts that lag significantly (not a
> decision we make now)

> *       Multiple Projects -- more than one PAR considered at the same
> Plenary

> q       Serial Projects -- more than one PAR considered at the same
> Plenary

> This will be a key matter for the April Interim.  I would encourage all
> to use the HSSG reflector to discuss this matter further.

> Best Regards,

> John D'Ambrosia

> Chair, IEEE 802.3 Higher Speed Study Group

> [attachment "C.htm" deleted by David Law/GB/3Com]