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

Re: [802-20-GENERAL:] 802.20 Letter Ballot 1



Dear Jerry,
 
I agree with Hank that Hassan has a valid complaint.
 
To avoid future procedural trouble, I guess we'd better follow the 802.20 P&P rule, especially the statement  "7.  The draft must be approved for submittal to WG letter ballot at the 802.20 WG closing plenary. This will be a technical motion requiring at least 75% approval."
 
Best regards.
 
Luo Ping
Panasonic Singapore Lab.
(65)65505320
email: ping.luo@sg.panasonic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Eilts, Hank [mailto:eilts@TI.COM]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:28 AM
To: STDS-802-MOBILITY@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802-20-GENERAL:] 802.20 Letter Ballot 1

Hello Jerry,

 

I believe that Hassan has a valid complaint here.

 

The section 2.9.2 to which you both refer is prefaced by an intro paragraph (section 2.9) that states (among other things):

 

The rules and procedures governing WG letter ballots, comment resolution and confirmation letter ballots are contained in the Policies and Procedures of IEEE Project 802 (see ref. [rules3], 5.1.4.2.2). . . . The following additional requirements are imposed within WG 802.20.

 

It’s clear that the rules following that introduction are for the Working Group, not merely special rules for a Task Group.  While requirement 1 in section 2.9.2 does specifically apply to a Task Group and cannot apply to our situation (we had no Task Group), the other requirements (2 through 7) do not refer to Task Groups and either explicitly mention the Working Group or make no reference to a group.    Specifically, requirement 7 states:

 

7.  The draft must be approved for submittal to WG letter ballot at the 802.20 WG closing plenary. This will be a technical motion requiring at least 75% approval.

 

This is not a special rule for Task Group procedures.  We didn’t follow this requirement.  The draft was not available at the close of the January meeting, and there was no approval at our closing plenary.

 

I think we can avoid a lot of procedural troubles later if we hold off a bit and rescind the letter ballot until we get Working Group approval of the draft.  At this point, our best bet for avoiding problems later is to slow down a bit and make sure we are following our published procedures now.

 

My 2c.

 

Hank

 

 

Hank Eilts

Texas Instruments

DSPS R&D Center

Voice:  214 480.3581

     Fax: 972 761.6966

  Email: eilts@ti.com

 


From: Jerry1upton@AOL.COM [mailto:Jerry1upton@AOL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:58 AM
To: STDS-802-MOBILITY@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802-20-GENERAL:] 802.20 Letter Ballot 1

 

Dear Hassan,

The section of the 802.20 P&P you reference in your compliant, section 2.9.2 is additional requirements imposed within 802.20 on Task Groups. Currently 802.20 has no Task Groups (TGs). At the Working Group level the rules are the same as the 802 P&P. I am very sure of this interpretation as I wrote the current 802.20 P&P. 

 

I hope this clarifies your concerns.

 

The Letter Ballot is valid and I encourage members to complete and submit their ballots before the upcoming deadline.

Regards,

Jerry Upton

 

In a message dated 2/8/2006 7:18:23 PM Central Standard Time, hassan.yaghoobi@INTEL.COM writes:

Dear Jerry,

 

We have complaint on initiation of this letter ballot. Please see the attached document. We request your prompt response and action on this matter.

 

Sincerely,

Hassan Yaghoobi

Intel Corporation