Re: [802-LMSC] Agenda item for todays telecon

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

the chair doesn't have a distinct responsibility to advance the draft. if I said that below, I didn't say so - but progressing the standard is the business of the WG (see 2^nd paragraph under 6. Meetings - its one of the things you hold meetings for)

BUT, as you state, this is for the WG, and the chair needs to advance the groups agenda.

As to whether resolving a technical comment is a technical matter - the P&P leaves that determination to the chair.... it's a matter of opinion, but if you have a position achieved by consensus, you need consensus to change it. otherwise, "no consensus to change" is a statement of fact.

The question comes down to what is "resolving" a comment -

For that, I would look to 5.4.3.3 of the Standards Board Ops Manual, which describes what the CRG does with comments. We are to follow these procedures as closely as we can in WG ballot as well.

They don't talk about "resolving" comments - they talk about "considering" comments. (Do Not Approve votes are "resolved"). If there is no consensus to change, you need to provide an explanation for the rejection (as part of the evidence of consideration), and I will note the discussion in the SASB OpsMan is written as a procedural matter (providing evidence of consideration to IEEE). However, again, the chair has the power to declare it procedural or technical.

Look forward to the discussion.

From: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 12:02 PM
To: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-LMSC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-LMSC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Agenda item for todays telecon

The WG P&P requires 75% for

Any other technical matter not defined elsewhere in this document

Is resolving a technical comment a technical matter?

As for progress, I don't think it is the chair's responsibility to make progress on a draft. It is the chairs' responsibility to advance the group's agenda which may include not advancing a draft standard.

-Robert

From: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 11:47 AM
To: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-LMSC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-LMSC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Agenda item for todays telecon

Reading the P&Ps, a CHANGE to a draft standard requires a 75% approval. If you don't get a 75% approval, you don't change. I don't see the WG P&Ps requiring a vote to NOT change a draft. Hence, responding to the comment, "no consensus to change" in the absence of a 75% approval TO change is procedural. A motion for that is up to the chair, IMHO - not required. In fact, in addition to determining whether the matter is procedural or technical, the Chair can decide procedural matters without a WG vote (WG P&P 3.5.1 items z & aa).

That's what the WG P&Ps say on the issue. Now, for practical concerns...

However, if more than half the group thinks they can reach consensus, even a procedural vote will fail - so you keep fighting it out. But if >50% vote that there is no consensus, it seems unlikely you're going to find a 75% solution.

After all, the business of the WG is to progress the draft standard - and balancing progress with the quest to find broad consensus is the thing the Chair needs to judge in making these decisions.

-george

From: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 11:18 AM
To: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-LMSC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-LMSC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Agenda item for todays telecon

In this case, specifically a REJECTED resolution due to "no consensus" on a technical issue.

Essentially, a procedural motion to not change the draft as proposed or in some other way.

If the CRG is deadlocked over two directions (no change vs a proposed change) then how does the group proceed?

Rule the "no consensus" resolution procedural so that the group can proceed with a 50% vote

Or require the group to find a direction that achieves 75%

-Robert

From: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 10:58 AM
To: STDS-802-LMSC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-LMSC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Agenda item for todays telecon

Robert - the Working Group P&Ps (7.1.2) states that any matter that would make a non-editorial change to a draft standard requires a three-quarters vote. Are you talking about non-editorial comments? (the WG chair gets to decide what is editorial or procedural - but if we are talking technical comments, I don't see how you could support a decision that this was procedural). Sometimes the resolution of individual comments is considered without such a motion, but only when the adoption of all the comment responses is then taken as a 75% motion...

From: ***** IEEE 802 LAN-MAN Standards Committee ***** <STDS-802-LMSC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 9:54 AM
To: STDS-802-LMSC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-LMSC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [802-LMSC] Agenda item for todays telecon

Hello James, Beth,

I'd like to add a discussion item to today's agenda:

I was asked if it is appropriate to use procedural motions for comment resolution. In .11 we do not do this, but the individual was participating in 802.15.4ab where it has been used. I'd like to discuss this.

Regards,

-Robert

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-LMSC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-LMSC&A=1