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


Hash: SHA1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Quackenbush []
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 2:27 PM
> To:
> Cc:
> Carl,
> I very much appreciate your response.

You are quite welcome.
> My purpose in requesting this information was not to nitpick
> whether a quorum was present, but get a better understanding of the
> breadth of support for the position statements (guidance, if you
> will).

> I understand that these positions are important to the 
> wireless working
> groups and that they must be filed in a timely manner.
> Unfortunately in this day of ever present spinmeisters, I have a
> knee jerk reaction to anyone telling me how I should view something
> without providing me the supporting data.  In this case, phrases
> like 
> "the fact
> that the documents were so overwhelmingly approved by the 3
> wireless WGs" generate such a reaction when not accompanied with
> the 
> actual votes.

It certainly was never my intention to engage in "spinmeisterism" :-)
In my original motion, I stated " ... with well more than 75%
approval in
each case," which was accurate as far as the votes went, but perhaps
not detailed enough.
> While as I understand the IEEE, IEEE-SA and 802 rules, the 802 SEC
> can issue such a position statement as an 802 position without
> approval of the working group(s), I disagree that the WG votes are 
> irrelevant.  The
> SEC is being asked to take this position at the request of 
> the wireless
> WGs and it is relevant for the SEC to understand the breadth 
> of wireless WG support.

You are correct that WG support is not "irrelevant" ... I was
only refering to the technical matter of whether the WG votes
were REQUIRED for the SEC to make a decision ... I agree whole-
heartedly that understanding the breadth of WG support is an
important insight.
> For instance, the 13/3/13 vote of 802.15 on 18-02-005 
> (Comments on NPRM)
> while clearly approving the position by greater than 75% of 
> those voting
> approve or disapprove, is not in my opinion "overwhelming
> approval".  The fact that I disagree with the "overwhelming
> approval"
> characterization does not mean that I will vote disapprove.  I
> simply want the actual vote data so that I can make the judgment
> for myself.  

In the future, I will endeavour to provide more detailed inputs.
> I will note that you appear to have misunderstood what I was 
> seeking in
> my second question.  I was asking for the number of 
> individuals in each
> of the WG who have voting rights in that WG, not the number of
> members present at the meeting was present when the votes were
> taken.  While that information could be used to determine whether a
> quorum was
> present, that was not my goal.  My interest was in determining the
> breadth of support relative to all of the voters in each WG.  Again
> guidance.

Actually, I did understand your question and the distinction between
"how many voting members EXIST" and "how many voting members WERE
... I just don't know the current number of voting members in either
.11, .15, or .16, so I couldn't answer your question.  I also did not
how many total voting members were in attendance in Sydney.  


Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3