Re: [STDS-802-11-CAC] DRAFT motions for May interim
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Chairs' Advisory Committee Reflector ---
Dorothy/all,
This is in reference to the TGbe Letter Ballot expected out of the May session:
In looking through the 802.11 OM (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/14/11-14-0629-22-0000-802-11-operations-manual.docx), it seems that there are important distinctions for letter ballots that are “for ballots on drafts” and for letter ballots that are “mandatory WG letter ballots”.
The process for balloting a draft is specific and laid out primarily in sections 3.8 and 3.9 of the OM. Mostly, that all seems fine, in context. But, there are few places where the text appears to make the assumption that when it says “WG [letter] ballot” that it means a ballot on a draft. For example, “For an 802.11 WG letter ballot to be considered valid, the abstention rate must be less than 30%.” – this appears in the section “Draft WG Balloting”, so does this rule apply only to WG letter ballots on a draft or to all WG letter ballots?
The concept of a “mandatory WG letter ballots” appears, in the context of losing voting rights (the “2 out of 3 rule”), but does not seem to be anywhere else in the document. I am making an assumption that when a WG letter ballot is “mandatory” is at the discretion of the WG Chair, but I’m not sure that’s valid. I also assume we can agree that a letter ballot that is advancing a draft (per section 3.9) will be a mandatory WG letter ballot.
I bring this all up, because I wonder if we might want to make some clarifications to the OM, to distinguish a “draft letter ballot” from other types of letter ballots, so we can be clear about rules that need to apply to ballots that are specifically advancing a draft per section 3.9, that could perhaps be more flexible on other kinds of ballots (including other “ballots on a draft” such as the TGbe ballot being proposed in May). And, in particular, that would allow us to be clear that these special draft letter ballots are always mandatory WG letter ballots. As a related item, perhaps we also should clarify in general when and how a WG letter ballot is determined to be a mandatory one.
I’ll note that the 802 LMSC P&P are somewhat worse w.r.t this ambiguity. For example, the paragraph on loss of WG voting rights starts with this statement, “Excepting recirculation letter ballots membership may be lost if two of the last three Working Group letter ballots are not returned, …” Nothing hints at this being only for “mandatory” letter ballots, or for WG letter ballots that are advancing a draft, etc. We may want to suggest that this document be clarified, as well.
Lastly, I am assuming that there is intention to share the 802.11be draft with (at least) Wi-Fi Alliance at some point in this process. Is it clear within our rules when that is allowed/appropriate, and do those rules support TGbe’s intentions? (I can’t seem to find the details on this question – maybe someone can point out where this is documented?)
Thanks for your consideration.
Mark
From: *** IEEE stds-802-11-cac List ***
_______________________________________________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________________________________________