| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Osama,
- Is there a reason why not start a normal WG LB?
By this, I assume you mean a WG LB that asks “Should P802.11<x> Draft <y> be forwarded to Sponsor Ballot>?” If that is what you mean, then I would refer to section 3.9 of the 802.11 OM (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/14/11-14-0629-22-0000-802-11-operations-manual.docx):
It is the responsibility of the TG to ensure that the draft is ready for balloting, i.e. that it is complete (e.g. no place holders or notes for future action, editing, or clarifications) and of sufficient quality.
Given that we all recognize that our current draft is _not_ complete (intentionally), I would object to holding a normal WG LB asking to advance the draft. Anyone voting Yes on such a ballot would be clearly not following the procedure (or, I suppose could be voting that we should proceed to SA with what we have and not complete it (which would imply a PAR amendment, also), but that is re-opening the discussion at the TG level on what our PAR scope should be, and I really don’t want to have that debate again, either.)
So, the assumption would be that such a question to the WG would result in overwhelming “No” responses, and would solicit loads of comments on what is still missing before we are ready for SA ballot. That all seems like a huge distraction and confusion, given our plan and where we are.
Mark
From: Osama AboulMagd <Osama.AboulMagd@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 4:55 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Comment collection on D1.0
I agree with Matt and Srini.
As srini mentioned and to avoid the confusion I don’t think the use of D1.0 is appropriate given that it is only a comment collection. Using D0.5 is a reasonable suggestion.
If there is a need to have D1.0 then I suggest we go to a normal WG LB. Is there a reason why not start a normal WG LB? All drafts have been evolved as a result of the ballot. 11ax for example the draft was 427 pages on the first WG LB and ended up over 800 pages.
Regards;
Osama.
From: Srinivas Kandala [mailto:srini.k1@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 4:54 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Comment collection on D1.0
I agree with Matt Fischer on the difference between LB and CC and we should not hold this CC to a higher requirement compared to others.
Having said that, could we label the upcoming draft as D0.5 and not D1.0? I know it is just a label, but D1.0 did mean something (to at least a few) so far and why create (or break) a precedence when it does not serve any purpose?
Thanks.
Regards,
srini
From: Matthew Fischer [mailto:00000959766b2ff5-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 12:18 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Comment collection on D1.0
Brian,
I would oppose the modification to CC that you are proposing.
I believe that the distinction is clear between what a WG LB is and what a WG CC is.
But what you are proposing is some sort of hybrid between the two.
While the original motion during the closing plenary is not exactly what you are proposing, what was proposed was also some sort of hybrid between LB and CC and the group strongly objected to that proposal.
The objection was partly, I believe, based on the problem that it was difficult to understand what rules would be in place under such a hybrid mechanism.
The WG has two options today, WG and CC, which have served the group quite well through the years and each of those processes is well known.
If the group has a need to create yet another mechanism, then I would prefer that the group:
1. show why such a new mechanism is needed
2. through a group process, formally define the parameters of that new mechanism instead of haphazardly patching together bits and pieces to make something new, with implications that no one really understands.
If you really want a process that requires a thorough examination of all submitted comments, we already have that, and that is the LB.
Matthew Fischer
Nice Guy
Broadcom Inc.
+1 408 543 3370 office
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:13 AM Brian Hart (brianh) <00000c7561051aea-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Alfred
Given that we’re having a comment collection on a draft labelled “D1.0” my expectation is that we will justify this label by processing the comments with much same process and diligence as we would apply to a D1.0 subject to an actual WG letter ballot. Accordingly, might we attempt to formalize this expectation via an 11be motion such as:
“No further comment collection or letter ballot will be held on the 11be draft until each comment received during the D1.0 comment collection has received an individualized and approved resolution.”
Accordingly might we add this as an agenda topic at the next Joint 11be session?
Best regards
Brian
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1
This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and destroy any printed copy of it.To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1