| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Chairs' Advisory Committee Reflector ---
OK, the net result for getting voting rights is the same. But, that’s not what 7.2 or the 7.4 state machine show. The only time I can imagine it matters, is perhaps in considering some later time, after 4 plenaries, and quite exactly when voting rights will be lost or can
be barely kept by attending the right session. I haven’t worked through the nits to see if it matters at all, and, perhaps this is just pedantic. But, it seems these edits are to deal with pedantic or perhaps real, but corner-case, situations. I’m not
sure… Mark From: Stephens, Adrian P [mailto:Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx]
No we don’t agree on the sequence. There’s nothing special about the first interim he attends. It doesn’t somehow invalidate later interims attended. As long as he attends 2 qualifying meetings within the last 4 consecutive plenaries, he is good. A qualifying meeting is: 1. A plenary. 2. At most one interim. Best Regards, Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 (1793) 404 825 Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 Tel: +1 (408) 239 7485 ---------------------------------------------- From: Hamilton, Mark [mailto:Mark.Hamilton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Adrian, The case that bothers me, is a new participant, who starts at an Interim, and attends all subsequent sessions. Per the paragraph in 7.2 that I cited below,
and the state machine in 7.4, the sequence is: Interim (which qualifies as a substitute for a Plenary), then a Plenary, then an Interim (which does not qualify, and does nothing), then a Plenary (at the beginning of which voting rights are given). Checking: do we agree to the above sequence? If so, I find the language in 7.5 confusing, at best, and I would argue just wrong. Your change (to “The rule is that any interim
after the first of the last
4 consecutive plenaries is a qualifying interim.“) doesn’t help. It still says (to me, at least) that the first Interim the participant attended does not qualify as
a substitute for a Plenary. Mark From: Stephens, Adrian P [mailto:Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx]
Hello Mark, Please see below… Best Regards, Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 (1793) 404 825 Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 Tel: +1 (408) 239 7485 ---------------------------------------------- From: *** IEEE stds-802-11-cac List *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-CAC@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Hamilton, Mark --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Chairs' Advisory Committee Reflector ---
Jon, Since we’re being pedantic (and I gather we need to be…?)… In 7.2 (second/last paragraph), it says, “However, if the new participant attends for the first time at an interim, that interim is substituted for a
plenary.” This implies that the first interim, that is, the first session the participant attends, is the one that qualifies as replacing a plenary. [Stephens, Adrian P] This is necessarily true at the time he attends. But after a bunch of plenaries it no longer qualifies. But, in 7.5, it says, “The rule is that any interim after the first of the 4 consecutive plenaries is a qualifying interim”
which clearly says the second interim in Figure 7.2-2 should be the one where the process goes forward (effectively, the first interim is meaningless). [Stephens, Adrian P]
What we need to say is
The rule is that any interim after the first of the
last 4 consecutive plenaries is a qualifying interim. Based on the flow-chart in 7.4, I think the Figure in 7.2 is correct,
[Stephens, Adrian P]
I think that 7.4 and 7.2 are correct. and the text in 7.5 is misleading/incorrect. Perhaps the text in 7.5 was meant to apply only to ‘losing’ voting rights, per 7.1.4, and not the process for
getting voting rights covered by 7.2 and 7.4?[Stephens, Adrian P]
,
[Stephens, Adrian P]
No, There is no inconsistency. In all of the meetings in figures 7.2, all of the interims are qualifying by the rule in 7.4. Consider the meetings (plenaries are even, interims are odd) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (These are preceeding meetings.) Then the user attends a plenary 8. The qualifying meetings are 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 (4 plenaries and their following interim) The attended meeting is underlined. He is an aspirant. Now he attends the next plenary, meeting 10. The qualifying meetings are 4 5 6 7
8 9 10, he is a potential voter. Now he attends the next plenary as potential voter. After that meeting he is a voter
and his qualifying attendances are: 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 [Stephens, Adrian P]
Now turn to 7.2-2 He attends interim, which we’ll call meeting 7. 1 2 3 4 5 6
7, After this meeting he is an aspirant He then attends the march meeting 2 3 4 5 6
7 8. He is now a potential voter. Now he attends the may interim 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 Because he can only substitute a single interim, only one of 7/9 counts, and he remains a potential voter. Then he attends the July plenary and becomes a voter. 4 5 6
7 8 9 10. He is a voter. I don’t understand why Mark thinks this is inconsistent, but I don’t see any inconsistency. The point is that the eligible meetings are determined by the last 4 plenaries, not the last plenary attended by that voter. Mark
From: *** IEEE stds-802-11-cac List *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-CAC@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jon Rosdahl --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Chairs' Advisory Committee Reflector ---
Hello Everyone, Today in our Meeting, I will introduce the new OM with the 2013 new doc number. There is a new section that we would like to add, and updates to some links within the doc. This revision is saved with the Show changes on...if you want to see it cleanly, remember to select "Review" Final version. We will discussion this a bit and then present to the WG on Wednesday. Thanks for checking it over for obvious issues that I may have not seen. Thanks, Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.
SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to -
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-CAC and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.
SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to -
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-CAC and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand. SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-CAC and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button. Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________ |