| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Jerry, Hank
and Hassan, When I see
through the complaint letter and relevant sections of 802.20 policies & procedures
and Technical selection process, I have read the procedure and understand the
WG 802.20 conducted WG letter ballot without following the procedure which was
made by WG 802_20. As an IEEE member and IEEE-SA member, I suggest WG 802.20
chair show more valid rationale for this procedure regards. I would also like
to suggest that all the email reflector subscribers go and read the related
documents. http://www.ieee802.org/20/P_Docs/IEEE%20802.20-PD-10.doc
: IEEE 802.20 Technology
Selection Process (V 1.0) Contact: Jerry
Upton, (09/2005) http://www.ieee802.org/20/P_Docs/IEEE%20802.20%20PD-05.doc
: IEEE 802.20
Policies and Procedures (V 1.0)(Contact: Jerry
Upton, (01/2004) In PD-05, it is
written clearly PD-05 has higher priority than any other documents produced by
WG 802.20. In the related
document and relevant sections referred by Hank and Hassan, two documents have
procedural inconsistency to my reading. Cause of procedural precedence, it is
obviously better to adopt the 802.20 P&P rather than TSP. It is believed
the procedures and policies are one single thing the WG have to get same
understanding. I suggest that the chairman should have his own discretion with
better consideration. The PD-05 is written clearly “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.” In order to
follow the virtue of IEEE 802 standard procedure, it would be really
appreciated if WG chairman can comprehending the rules and procedures with
consistent manner. Best regards Thanks Panyuh From:
Eilts, Hank [mailto:eilts@TI.COM] 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 Voice: 214 480.3581 Fax:
972 761.6966 Email: eilts@ti.com From:
Jerry1upton@AOL.COM [mailto:Jerry1upton@AOL.COM] 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
|