stds-802-16-tg2: re: non-approval of P802.16.2a, and followup offer extended
One correction: When I said that I didn't have time to circulate the
revised PAR to the Working Group, I was confusing July with June. In
fact, the next NesCom deadline isn't until July 9. Therefore, the
relevant deadline is the SEC's; they need the PAR 30 days before the
July Plenary. I'll plan to submit it by June 20. That will leave a
few days for review.
Roger
>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