Re: [802SEC] PARs under consideration at the NOV09 plenary
Geoff -
While I have been 802.1 Chair, it has always been my practice to provide vote tallies on
all motions forwarded for further action, and I don't plan to vary that practice.
However, it has NEVER been the 802.1 practice (or any other WG practice for that matter,
with the possible exception of 802.3) to vote on 6 motions in order to approve a PAR/5C; I
don't plan to change that practice any time soon, this side of the 802 operating rules
forcing such a change upon me, and such a change, if proposed, will be vigorously opposed
by me.
I have 3 PARs coming up for approval in November. 18 motions instead of 3? You'd better
believe that I consider that to be onerously bureaucratic. But it isn't required by our
operating rules, and as such, much as you might want me to run 18 motions, there is
absolutely no requirement for me to oblige you.
Regards,
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@ieee.org]
Sent: 30 October 2009 22:15
To: tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] PARs under consideration at the NOV09 plenary
Tony-
It is my belief that 6 separtate votes is not "onerously bureaucratic" if each of the 5
Criteria is truly given the attention in the plenary that serious consideration deserves.
I certainly would welcome any constructive suggestions that you may have to improve the
quality of our consideration of new projects.
It is the practice in 802.3 to provide vote tallies on all motions that are to be
forwarded to the EC for further action.
I believe it is good practice to do so.
Geoff
On 10/30/09 12:26 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
Geoff -
As far back as I can remember, there has NEVER been any requirement for a WG to
perform or
present separate votes on each of the 6 items you list, neither is it a stated or
implied
requirement of our operating rules that we do so. Neither is there any requirement
in our
rules that we report on the anticipated number of individuals and corporations
that will
actively participate in "teh" development.
Notwithstanding the above, if what you are expecting me (and the other WGs that
have draft
PARs) to do is to run 6 separate motions and votes in my closing Plenary on the
PAR text
and the separate 5C items, then you are going to be disappointed.
I agree with you that EC review of proposed projects is one of the (if not THE)
ECs most
serious duties, and that the 5C are not pro-forma items, but making the process
more
onerously bureaucratic is not the way to ensure that it is taken seriously.
Regards,
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org]
On
Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: 30 October 2009 01:49
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] PARs under consideration at the NOV09 plenary
Colleagues-
An "estimate" is not good enough for me and it shouldn't be good enough
for the EC as a whole.
We have required numerical votes on project paperwork for years.
I will vigorously speak in opposition to any PAR that is proposed for EC
vote without SEPARATE numerical votes for each of the following items
that is to be presented to the EC
WG numerical vote on the final PAR text
WG vote on the responses to the Broad Market Potential criteria
WG vote on the responses to the Technical Feasibility criteria
WG vote on the responses to the Economic Feasibility criteria
WG vote on the responses to the Compatibility criteria
WG vote on the responses to the Distincy Identity criteria
Report on the anticipated number of individuals and corporations
that will actively participate in teh development
I consider the EC review of proposed projects to be one of our most
seriouis duties. In particular, the 5 Criteria are not just a pro-forma
paper exercise. They are to be taken as a serious examination of the
justification for the project.
If there is any PAR that doesn't have the numbers at this point, there
is no reason that they can't be gathered during the Atlanta Plenary.
Best regards,
Geoff
On 10/29/09 3:47 PM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
Dear EC Members,
There are a lot of PARs under consideration in November. One of the key
data points I'd
like to see is the level of WG support for each of the PARs. Please provide the
EC the
numerical results (approve/disappove/abstain) of the WG votes on the motions
supporting
the PAR/5Cs. If the vote was not numerically recorded--e.g., unanimous approval,
please
provide an estimate of the number of WG members present at the time of the vote.
Regards,
--Paul
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This
list is
maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is
maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is
maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.