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

RE: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ P802.3ah conditional approval

Mat -

I believe that the rules we inherit from on high indicate that if the work has 75% or greater approval, that we are obligated to progress it to standard with all speed, consistent with properly addressing the comments of the minority. To quote from the Standards Companion:

"Once you have achieved consensus, an obligation to the majority exists to approve and publish the standard quickly. However, you are obligated to respond to the negative comments of the minority. You should attempt to resolve those negative comments, but if there is no indication that further resolution can be achieved based on that, you should move your document forward for approval, still having met the terms of consensus."

Earlier in the same section it defines "consensus" to be 75% or better approval rate.


At 01:48 22/11/2003, Matthew Sherman \(Home\) wrote:
Bob / all,
The one things that does bother me a little is that while 84% meets the
letter of the rule, it is a bit short of where I thought we normally send
things to sponsor.  I have generally been encouraged to get at least 90% or
preferably 95% before going to sponsor ballot.  In fact, I have sometimes
discouraged people from sending stuff up to the EC specifically because it
fell short of this goal and therefore I did not think it would make it
through an EC vote.
Does anyone have any comments on the idea of sending thing out to sponsor
with less than 90 or 95% approval?

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Grow, Bob
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 7:48 PM
To: IEEE802
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ P802.3ah conditional approval



I must respectfully disagree with most of your arguments, finding them


1.      There is no requirement to provide a summary of the comments.  In
fact, the requirement is to supply the comments and responses.  That has
been done with a URL.

2.      Consideration of the motion was deferred because you complained the
number of comments was too many to review in the EC meeting.  Now you are
arguing that it is too many to review in a 10 day ballot.  The number of
unresolved comments does not relieve our responsibilities for administering
the process, and we would have to do so in the case of an unconditional
request for forwarding to Sponsor Ballot.  The only difference between an
unconditional approval and the requested conditional approval is that 19
comments included in the current recirculation might possibly be reduced in
number.  The comments already recirculated but still unresolved would not
decrease with were this an unconditional approval for Sponsor Ballot.

3.      I will not attempt to dispute your subjective judgment that the 65
unresolved comments contra-indicate that "...ballot resolution efforts have
been substantially completed...", other than to reiterate that of these
comments, only 19 unresolved comments are from the D2.1 ballot and 7 of the
19 are pile-on comments to D2.0 comments.  Each member of the EC must make
their own subjective judgment if this criteria has been met.

4.      The number of comments you cite as evidence of lack of consensus is
not supported by the approval ratio.  The approval ratio at 84% remains well
above the required 75%. 

5.      The schedule for resolution of comments was presented to the SEC
when the motion was originally presented at the closing EC meeting.  My
apologies for the lack of redundancy in presenting that information again
with the motion.  If the recirculation ballot produces no comments, there
will be no meeting.  If there are comments, a BRC will meet via
teleconference on 4 December to resolve the comments.  The BRC meeting with
short notice was approved by 802.3 (56, 0, 21).


There are things in the P802.3ah draft that I personally don't like.  I have
concerns about what I believe are technical problems in the draft.  I have
unresolved comments from D2.0 (supported by some D2.1 pile-on comments).  No
D2.0 voter's comments were persuasive enough make the recirculation ballot
fail.  Independent of my personal concerns expressed through the Working
Group ballot, I recognize that at the EC I am not to judge the technical
content of the draft, but I am to judge if the procedural requirements have
been met and defer to the technical judgment of the ballot group.


I as Chair and each member of the EC have obligations to both the minority
and the majority of the ballot group.  Though a minority remain unsatisfied,
their comments were and are being recirculated to the ballot group.  I
believe our obligation to them has been fulfilled.  We now have an
obligation to act per the expressed will of the majority.


--Bob Grow


-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 12:08 PM
To: Paul Nikolich
Cc: IEEE802
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ P802.3ah conditional approval



Please read Procedure 10 carefully BEFORE you vote.
Procedure 10 was specifically put in place to bring consistency to the
conditional approval process.


My primary rationale:
The requirements of Procedure 10 have NOT been met.
Specifically (extracted verbatim from procedure 10):

Motions requesting conditional approval to forward where the prior ballot
has closed shall be accompanied by:

* Date the ballot closed [GOT: 2.1 closed 3-Nov per slide 2]

* Vote tally including Approve, Disapprove and Abstain votes

        [GOT: Buried in table slide 2, 92/18/6

* Comments that support the remaining disapprove votes and Working Group

        [GOT: Unsatisfied requirement, further comments below.]

* Schedule for confirmation ballot and resolution

        [GOT: Unsatisfied requirement, further comments below.]

RE: Remaining Disapproves:
802.3 has not provided a concise summary of the "remaining disapprove votes
and Working Group responses" to you in this motion package per the "shall be
accompanied by" requirement. Rather they have merely provided a pointer to:

"Complete comment databases from these two ballots are available at:"

This does not meet the requirement
This has the effect of masking the extent to which consensus has or has not
been met.
The fact that there are (slide 3) "65 unresolved Technical Required
(negative) comments" really means that there are too many comments to be
reviewed during an EC motion. ["Seeking conditional approval is only
appropriate when ballot resolution efforts have been substantially
completed..."] This issue has been ducked by not meeting the requirement and
exposing the dissenting votes. It is my belief that this project, at this
point in the process, is an inappropriate stretch of the intention of
Procedure 10.

RE: Schedule for confirmation ballot:
I don't understand why the required specifics have not been provided instead
of the generalities provided below. The schedule for recirc is known as the
ballot has already been opened. There seems to me no meeting scheduled for
resolution of comments. I assert that this is a requirement of this



At 11:56 AM 11/21/2003 -0500, Paul Nikolich wrote:

Dear SEC members,

This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination by EC motion to
conditionally approve P802.3ah to begin Sponsor Ballot.



The LMSC executive committee grants conditional approval per Procedure 10,
for P802.3ah sponsor ballot pending successful completion of the working
group ballot process.

Moved by Bob Grow
Seconded by Tony Jeffree

The email ballot opens on Friday Nov 21 NOON EST and Monday Dec 1 NOON EST.

Please direct your responses to the EC reflector with a CC directly to me
( <> ).


- Paul Nikolich

Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC


During the closing EC meeting, consideration of conditional approval for
P802.3ah progressing to sponsor ballot was deferred for email consideration.


*       The working group vote for conditional approval passed Y: 57, N: 2,
A: 17 as shown in the attachment.

*       This EC vote is being conducted in parallel with the second working
group recirculation ballot.  This timing will allow a sponsor ballot to be
conducted prior to the Vancouver interim meeting if the recirculation ballot
results satisfy Procedure 10 of the LMSC P&P.  There is insufficient time
for conduct of a working group ballot, EC ballot and sponsor ballot in
serial prior to the Vancouver meeting.

*       If the requirements of Procedure 10 are met, the sponsor ballot will
open very quickly after close of the working group recirculation.

*       The initial P802.3ah/D2.0 working group ballot closed 3 Sep 2003 and
the first WG recirculation ballot on P802.3ah/D2.1 closed 3 Nov 2003.
Complete comment databases from these two ballots are available at:
<> .

*       The ballot results are in the attached report.

*       Unresolved (unsatisfied) negative comments from D2.0 were included
in  the D2.1 recirculation.

*       Unresolved (unsatisfied) negative comments from both D2.1 and D2.0
are included in the D2.2 recirculation.

*       If you want access to the drafts, please contact Howard or me for
the username and password.




The LMSC executive committee grants conditional approval per Procedure 10,
for P802.3ah sponsor ballot pending successful completion of the working
group ballot process.