stds-802-16-tg2: non-approval of P802.16.2a, and followup offer extended
At its meeting today, the IEEE-SA Standards Board declined to approve
the submitted draft P802.16.2a/D5 ("Draft Amendment to IEEE
Recommended Practice for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks -
Coexistence of Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems - Amendment
1").
This issue was debated at great length, first in RevCom (which voted
yesterday to recommend approval) and again today by the IEEE-SA
Standards Board. The key issue was the one originally discussed at
RevCom's Early Consideration meeting in April
<http://ieee802.org/16/arc/802-16list2/msg00855.html>: that the
document looked like a Revision but was chartered as an Amendment. I
worked with RevCom and IEEE staff members on this issue in the
meantime, and I forwarded to RevCom a "Summary of Changes in
Amendment P802.16.2a Affecting IEEE Std 802.16.2"
<http://ieee802.org/16/docs/03/80216-03_23.pdf>. This document
summarized a document approved by the Working Group at Session #25,
putting it in context with regard to the RevCom deliberations. It
also recounts that the Ballot Resolution Committee had rejected a
comment from IEEE staff suggesting that we could run into trouble
later on if we followed along our course.
It turns out that, although the issue has many facets, the Standards
Board has presented an alternative that makes their concern very
concrete. This is specified in a motion that was passed, as detailed
in the note below from Paul Nikolich. I very much appreciate this
action on behalf of the Board (and I highly appreciate the supportive
efforts on our behalf by Howard Frazier, acting as a RevCom member
and as Standards Board Vice Chair).
The Board motion says that we need to recast the project as a
Revision, through a new PAR. We also need to reopen the ballot
invitation, specifying that we are doing a Revision of 802.16.2. If
no new members join the ballot group, then "the document is approved
as submitted". Otherwise, we need to re-ballot. This makes the key
issue clear: there is a concern that "some individuals might have
joined the previous balloting group if they had perceived the project
as a revision effort instead of an amendment." That is, someone
interested only in 10-66 GHz may have skipped the amendment ballot
since the amendment was aimed at 2-11 GHz; that same person might
have joined the ballot group if the project were advertised as a
complete rewrite (which, editorially at least, it is). Personally, I
think that the Board needs to think carefully about how to craft
rules that specify when an document exceeds the bounds of its charter
as an amendment. That will not be simple, but the issue doesn't
affect us here, since we have been judged out of bounds.
At this point, I plan the following actions:
(1) I will draft a revised PAR.
(2) I will submit the draft revised PAR to NesCom, to be eligible for
approval on August 4. (I need to do this right away in order to make
the deadline; I'm sorry I don't have time for Working Group review.
The Working Group can edit the draft in July.)
(3) I submit the revised PAR to the 802 SEC for consideration at the
July 802 Plenary.
Roger
>Roger,
>
>802.16.2a was not approved by the standards board due to concern
>that the ballot group was formed on the basis the document being
>balloted was an amendment, yet the Stds Board felt it should have
>been balloted as a revision due to the extensive changes made to the
>base document.
>
>Therefore a motion was passed as follows:
>
>"Move that the IEEE-SA Standards Board replace the existing motion
>on IEEE P802.16.2a with the following motion:
>
>Resolved that IEEE P802.16.2a ballot submission be handled as follows:
>
>1) Sponsor shall submit a revised PAR indicating that the document
>is a revision. This PAR can be handled through NesCom continuous
>processing.
>
>2) Sponsor shall send a ballot invitation to the balloting pool used
>for the previous amendment ballot.
>
>[The invitation should outline the current situation in terms of
>unanimous approval of those who voted, but recognition that some
>individuals might have joined the previous balloting group if they
>had perceived the project as a revision effort instead of an
>amendment.]
>
>3a) If no new members join the balloting group, the document is
>approved as submitted
>
>3b) If new members join the balloting group, an initial ballot shall
>be conducted on the current draft."
>
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul