Re: [802SEC] Q&A on the operation of the 802.11ax dominance remedy
Based on EC feedback, I'm going to revise thus:
1. WG letter ballot is not well described, but there is more in the
rules than I'd claimed. I'll cite the existing
text (Thank you Pat and James).
2. Ballot group will be fixed at WG voting membership throughout the
ballot. What is subject to special
measures is the means of counting the vote. (WG P&P is clearest in
supporting this position).
3. I'm still equivocating on whether to penalize those who don't
participate and are under special measures.
I've had comments stating that we should require those in the ballot
group to respond regardless of how
their votes are counted, and I'm coming round to that position.
What softens the impact is that 802.11 now determines response at the
end of the series (i.e. like 802.3
always did). So there is plenty of time for somebody in the ballot
group to respond if they miss the first ballot
(e.g. because they were in special measures and mistakenly thought they
did not need to respond to maintain
voting status).
Comments welcome on this topic to help me make my mind up. I would
like to revise the document in the
next couple of days so that the WG have time to digest the information.
Best Regards,
Adrian Stephens
IEEE 802.11 Working Group Chair
mailto: adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org
Phone: +1 (971) 203-2032
Skype: adrian_stephens
On 28/11/2016 16:40, Adrian Stephens wrote:
Dear all,
In the interests of full disclosure, I have received a comment from
an EC member on my
proposed method of conducting letter ballot.
That member believes that the method I propose is not valid. I
believe they would prefer the
ballot group to be fixed at the start of the ballot and remain
constant until the completion of
the ballot series.
I believe that my proposal is valid, and offer the following points in
support of my opinion:
1. One way of looking at the "special measure" is that they do not
affect the composition of the ballot group, but
they do affect the means of calculating a result from the votes cast
(i.e. such votes are "counted as one").
2. If all members subject to special measures are excluded from the
ballot, how is the vote of this group of members to be determined?
3. There are no rules that I am aware of for conduct of WG letter
ballots. In 802.11 we generally make WG letter ballot as similar as
possible to sponsor ballot, but there is no requirement that this be so.
4. This is an exceptional case, not covered by sponsor ballot rules.
Best Regards,
Adrian Stephens
IEEE 802.11 Working Group Chair
mailto: adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org
Phone: +1 (971) 203-2032
Skype: adrian_stephens
On 24/11/2016 07:40, Adrian Stephens wrote:
Dear 802.11 participants and EC,
As 802.11 WG chair, I have been instructed to implement the remedy
approved by the 802 EC.
In doing so, a number of questions about process have already been
asked by participants.
I have attempted to answer these here:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/16/11-16-1568-00-0000-interpretation-of-special-measures.doc
If anybody has an additional question, I will attempt to answer it
in this document, provided it falls
within the scope of the actions that I have been instructed to take.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.