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

Re: [802SEC] Kibis in Kauai


At 10:30 AM 11/5/2002 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:

Howard -

Its good to know that the traditional IEEE principle of openness has been applied to this activity...

Some observations:

- Raising a PAR in May, completing Sponsor ballot in July, and gaining revCom approval in September of the same year is a remarkable, even superhuman, feat - and one that can only be accomplished, IMHO, in the absence of considered review - unless, of course, the project is entirely content free and/or uncontentious.

_ As your slides point out, it is clear that this process has not been made open to interested parties (such as 802) that may well have been moved to join the balloting pool if they had been aware of this activity and its impact, and might even (perish the thought) have chosen to pass comment on this interesting document.

- I believe that the SB should rule that the Sponsor Ballot was invalid for the above reasons, and that the pool should be re-formed, following explicit notification and to all other IEEE standards activities/committees that might be affected, and following a suitable notice period (6 months?) for the notification to reach individuals that may feel the need to join the pool.

It might be actually more effective to have it go forth as a trial use standard. That way each party whose ox was gored would be motivated to enter comments that would be presented to REVCOM at the time it was put up for full approval (nominally 2 years)



At 01:13 05/11/2002 -0800, Howard Frazier wrote:

Dear IEEE 802 LMSC SEC Members,

I have asked Paul for a brief amount of time to
make a presentation at the opening plenary
meeting in Kauai on a subject that will come
before the IEEE-SA Standards Board in
December.  Attached please find a set of
slides that will explain the issue.

The topic is important, even though it is
sometimes hard to discuss it with a straight face.
I won't have enough time to present all of
the slides at the plenary, but I plan to cover at
least the 2nd and 3rd slides, and possibly
the 4th.  The remainder have been included
to help explain the issue, and hopefully
stimulate debate.

The Standards Board needs to hear from
people who have a stake in the subject.
For reasons outlined in the slide deck, I
believe that materially interested parties are
completely unaware of actions that have been
taken to date, and are not aware of the certain
impact of IEEE draft standard P1541.

I hope that you will see fit to share this material
with your working groups, and to elicit their
feedback.  I believe that if the LMSC takes a
position on this subject, it can have an effect
on the Standards Board's decision.

Here's the key to the whole thing: Look at
the "shall" statements on slide 2, and ask yourself
if all new and revised IEEE standards should have
to conform to them, because if P1541 becomes
an IEEE standard, that's what will happen.

Howard Frazier