Re: [802-20-GENERAL:] Posted Practice Ballot Draft
In response to the
May 5 802.20 WG Chair's posting:
1. I'm afraid that
the part on "creating their own draft" is based on misinterpretation and
selective reading of my previous posting by someone upset. I will leave it here.
I just want to clarify that I have always tried to work through the
Editorial Task Group (ETG) and my attempt has always been to get this group to
do its job properly. This part should come across during any objective
reading of my posting. I also believe that I have acted properly and
based on what I understand the mandate the ETG is .
2. Regarding the
statement: "Working Group 802.20 complained bitterly in the past
about decisions made by a small editorial group outside the view of the general
membership.", I'm afraid that there is some confusion between editorial groups
and ballot resolution groups.
3.Regarding the
opinion: "The hypothesis that this draft is not fit to for
discussion is peculiar. ", I would submit that what is peculiar ( i.e. no
other group or standards organization does it ) is taking a 800+ pages
document, merging it with an 1100+ set of documents and producing a 1100+
pages document without revision marks.
4. Regarding the
Chair's statement: "The merger of proposals into the first cut
draft, that is now posted, was done by the Chair of the Ad Hoc ETG. The
remainder of the ETG had no input." touches on the crux of the issue. The draft
has been created by a group of 1. The WG has set up the ETG exactly to avoid
that problem, and had the ETG been given the opportunity to have a say early
on, we wouldn't have these problems today.
I sincerely hope
that by the end of the Montreal meeting we can solve these issues in a manner
that is satisfactory to all sides.
Val