| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Graham, Yes, I misspoke. It was of course a straw poll that was taken in Bangkok. Not that I’m expecting a radically different answer from a motion. Even if the straw poll in Bangkok had been a motion (and we roughly seem to interpret straw polls that way), we still managed to follow that up with abject failure to agree upon any of the several solutions that were and have been presented. I’m not sure how “actioning” the TG will break us out of the cycle of coming up short when we get down picking solutions. That said, I have no objection to running the motions and I look forward to concrete decisions being made. -Peter From: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector --- Peter, Just a clarification. You questioned my suggested Motion #1 “given the motion in Bangkok”. That was in fact only a Straw Poll but yes, the result was 17/4. However, at the telecon last week we had effectively the same straw poll and the result was 12/9. So what I was seeking to do was to motion it so as to get a definitive answer. If it passed (as per Bangkok) then the TG is actioned to find solution(s), If it failed (effectively as per telecon), then the matter is dropped and we pass on to the other questions. Thanks Graham From: G Smith Mark, I agree with Mike’s proposals. See if you/we can come up with suitable words. Graham From: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx> --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector --- Thanks all, I would recommend that you create a motion ( or multiple) that establishes consensus on whether anything needs to be added to the current draft. (I guess you could be specific of proposals that have not reached the threshold to be added). Based on that result, you could run a further motion on whether the current draft is sufficient to go to LB. (or even run the LB motion) If neither of the above motions achieve consensus, you could run motions to disband the TG and move the work to TGbi (I would assume). I don't think it's worthwhile to discuss the PAR at this point - just adds further complexity. If the TG feels strongly that the PAR needs to change, then do the work on the PAR - but decide on the path first. (given the group has been discussing this for more than 2 yrs now) Cheers, Mike On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 12:37 PM Peter Yee <peter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1 |