| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Stéphane, I asked the question. I requested any "no" voters to say why. And no one said a thing. I actually waited for a little while and then said, "For shame!" in an attempt to shame them for this behavior. That comment is also missing from your
minutes. Later in the meeting when discussing why GCMP-256 was used to obfuscate the AID I mentioned that this would be the reason that I would vote "no" if the issue came up for a vote and reminded people that that was the proper behavior: if
you vote "no" you need to articulate a technical reason for it. I had one, because GCMP-256 is not the right tool for the job. This last issue is not so important that it needs to be in the minutes but the other one after motion #40 failed is very important.
Please add it. regards, Dan. -- "the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." – Marcus Aurelius On 4/2/24, 11:19 PM, "BARON Stephane" <Stephane.BARON@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Dan, Thank you for your careful review and comment. I understand your comment and I propose to add a line indicating “Previous comments received no answer.” at the end of the, post motion, discussion part. As far as I remember, after the motion, there was no questions, just comments. In particular, no explicit request to people voting “No” to provide a reason at that time. No questions like: “Can anybody voting “No”
can give any reason for that vote ?”. When I remember the discussion and read my notes, I rather feel a strong reminder on how a task group should behave and ask in general to provide reasons (preferably technical one) for rejection of a proposal. So
I prefer a sentence as I proposed. I think this honestly reflects what happened after the motion #40 failed. I hope this new sentence satisfies your comment. I will upload an r1 end of this week, waiting for any potential additional comments to integrate. Meanwhile, please let me know if you are ok with my proposal. Best regards. Stéphane. From: Harkins, Dan <daniel.harkins@xxxxxxx>
Hi Stéphane, Thank you for uploading the minutes. After motion #40 was run, and failed, there is the following discussion: C: It is perfectly fine to be against, but please indicate the reason for your “No” vote. C: Similar with previous comment. People voting “No” should have a technical reason, otherwise, this is not how this group is supposed to work. That accurately reflects some of the comments made on the call but I think it should be minuted that no one who voted "no" expressed any reason whatsoever, it wasn't just no technical reason, there was no reason
at all. Can you please append the above discussion with: "The 'no' voters were asked to provide a reason for their votes and no one said anything. It was complete silence." regards, Dan. -- "the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." – Marcus Aurelius On 3/29/24, 8:57 AM, "BARON Stephane" <Stephane.BARON@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Dear all, Please find on the server, the minutes for the TGbi sessions occurred during last 802.11 March interim meeting in Denver. Best regards Stéphane. To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBI list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBI&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBI list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBI&A=1 |