Re: [802-20-GENERAL:] Schedule issues

Jerry:

The issue is not just correcting the minutes, which can be done during the normal review at the start of the meeting in Vancouver. It's that a call for proposals was issued with a due date of Oct 28 (roughly 1 month after the meeting) and your assertion that not meeting this due date, with all the necessary supporting material, will disqualify an otherwise-valid proposal. The schedule and intervals you have set up are not based on an approved schedule. Clearly, this has a serious negative impact on members' ability to generate solid technical proposals along with the supporting material.

We request that the period for the submission of proposals be extended to conform with the Project Development Plan (PD-07r1) which was approved by the working group in November 2004. In that plan, "presentations, simulation results, and mergers" were to take place over three meetings, May, July, and September 2005, following a call for proposals in March. We would like to request that a similar set of meetings (November 2005, January 2006, and March 2006) be allowed for the same activities.

There is scant risk that 802.20 will be discontinued at the end of 2006. Extensions have routinely been granted to groups that are making progress toward fulfilling their PARs.

We await your response to our request.

Thank you very much,

Jim Mollenauer
Al Wieczorek
Val Oprescu

Jerry1upton@AOL.COM wrote:

Jim, Al, and Val,

You are correct that the 802.20 Work Plan was not revised in the September Interim. There was no vote by the working group members. The update that I presented has not replaced 802.20-PD-07r1 that is posted as a permanent Working Document. Any change to a permanent document does require a voted approval.

The draft minutes correctly state the proposed updated Work Plan was discussed and noted by the group and included in the minutes for information. I created and discussed the potential update to the work plan in response to an email from the Paul Nikolich, Chair of 802, asking me to remind the group that our PAR will "time out" at the end of 2006. Paul expressed a concern that the group was at risk of not completing a standard before the expiration date of the PAR.

There is no linkage between the work plan discussion and the approval of technology selection process at the September session.

Since there may be confusion on the wording in the draft minutes, I suggest we revise the minutes. Your inputs on a proposed revision to the draft the minutes are clearly welcome.

I will await your inputs and then I will work with the recording secretary to create and post a revision to the minutes.

Regards,

Jerry Upton

Chair 802.20

In a message dated 10/19/2005 2:24:26 PM Central Standard Time, jmollenauer@TECHNICALSTRATEGY.COM writes:

Jerry:

A number of us have had a concern with the schedule as announced at the
September meeting. A detailed letter is attached.

With regards,
Jim Mollenauer