Re: [802SEC] RE: 802.0 ReCirculation
The point here is that we really don't need the recirc to become a
discussion of issues that are necessarily outside the scope of a technical
group. I don't consider that a detailed explanation of the legal ins and
outs of this will be at all illuminating & will simply promote a
non-terminating discussion within a larger participating group.
Similarly, as the text that is proposed for the front matter is *not* the
subject of the ballot, and is *not* destined to be part of the standard,
circulating it as part of the ballot package would simply have invited
comment on material that is out of scope of the standard.
I don't think it is going to be at all helpful to re-open this issue. I
believe the best, and most appropriate, course of action here is to remove
the body of Clause 5; as the IEEE lawyers considered it unacceptable for it
simply to vanish in one go, the proposed NOTE stating where the policy can
be found and that the clause will disappear next time around seems to me to
be a reasonable compromise.
At 11:20 05/09/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>In the cover note you refer to 'legal issues' and 'negative legal
>ramifications' without specifically identifying they are. It is essential
>for the balloter to understand what those legal issues are. I recommend
>the IEEE lawyers should explain the issues and they be included in the next
>recirc ballot package if there is one.
>I also agree with Jim's points. I will vote disapprove.
>At 08:39 AM 9/5/01 -0500, Jim Carlo wrote:
> >I will vote Do Not Approve,
> >pending review of what the Front Matter says, and a statement in the Front
> >Matter that this "Front Matter is not part of the standard and was not
> >approved by ballot". Rationale is the front matter policy statement should
> >clearly state that it was not part of the standard ballot process. In the
> >past, there have been several ballot comments on the front matter, and
> >whether this is part of the standard or not, was a discussion item.
> >Jim Carlo (firstname.lastname@example.org) Cellular:1-214-693-1776
> >TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
> >Vice Chair, IEEE-SA Standards Board
> >Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:email@example.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:48 AM
> >To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Cc: IEEE802
> >Subject: Re: 802.0 ReCirculation
> >Jim -
> >The IEEE lawyers considered it to be a problem that the clause would simply
> >disappear in this revision; hence the NOTE. As the front matter is not the
> >subject of the ballot (it is not part of the standard), the front matter
> >text was not included in the ballot package.
> >At 20:22 04/09/2001 -0500, Jim Carlo wrote:
> >>Tony, I received your recirculation ballot. The note is confusing to me.
> >>I guess I was under the impression that the Clause 5 would be deleted, it
> >>would have been nice if the balloter could see the what was going to go in
> >>the Front matter. Have you seen this?
> >>Jim Carlo (email@example.com) Cellular:1-214-693-1776
> >>TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
> >>Vice Chair, IEEE-SA Standards Board
> >>Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee