Roger
There is no requirement anywhere to refer to the process by Clause
number. You could simply say:
"Report: Conditional Approval for RevCom, P802.16p and P802.16.1b"
It is a lot easier and you don't need to worry about clause number,
the title of the process is sufficient (and doesn't change).
James Gilb
On 06/26/2012 09:32 AM, Roger Marks wrote:
to: 802 EC reflector
cc: 802.16 reflector
Dear EC Colleagues:
I am writing to report on the status of P802.16p and P802.16.1b, per
the Clause 14 Conditional Approvals (to RevCom) granted on 16 March.
[Note: What was Clause 14 at the time of approval is Clause 13 in the
current version of the OM. I miss the good old days when it was
called Procedure 10 and didn't renumber the procedures with every
revision.]
The following sequence of events applies to both P802.16Rev3 and
P802.16.1:
*The first recirc occurred as scheduled (3 May to 5 April).
*A second recirc followed (4-19 June).
*Following the second recirc, the approval ratio is 98%, with two
Disapprove votes.
*One of the Disapprove voters submitted additional Disapprove
comments in the second recirc.
*The relevant Task Group has determined that a third recirculation is
appropriate.
*Our plan is to let the Conditional Approval time out, to initiate
the third recirculation during the July Plenary, and to ask again for
Conditional Approval there.
Regards,
Roger
Roger B. Marks<roger@consensii.com>
Consensii LLC<http://consensii.com>
Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless
Access<http://WirelessMAN.org>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.