RE: [RPRWG] Outline ordering
After waiting over a week and seeing no objections, I think we can do this.
While I understand that the WG approved an outline with the other original
order, I truly believe most people were really approving mostly the content.
And while we did try to place the sections in what we thought was the
correct order, I don't think anyone would mind if David's proposal moved one
Annex slightly. And I believe I can speak for the ad hoc group in saying
that we would have proposed this order if we had thought of it that night.
I don't want to encourage going against the votes of the WG, but I do want
to encourage reasonableness.
John Lemon
-----Original Message-----
From: RDLove [mailto:rdlove@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 7:57 AM
To: djz@xxxxxxxxxxx; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] Outline ordering
I, for one, have no objection. However, I would like to hear from anyone on
the reflector that has a problem with this suggestion.
Assuming there are no objections, we still have a slight procedural problem.
The Working Group has voted to approve the original organization of the
material. We can change that position at our January Interim meeting, try
to hold an electronic ballot, or ignore the groups decision. Personally, I
believe the last alternative gets us on a slippery slope that we should
avoid. The electronic ballot option has the problem that our Working Group
has not yet established rules for electronic voting on issues.
David, do you have any significant problem waiting for the January interim
meeting to change around the order of the clauses?
All, the need to make decisions between meetings could be easily addressed
if we establish rules for electronic balloting. I recommend that we develop
explicit rules and vote them in at our next meeting. It is extremely
convenient and potentially important to maintaining our schedule, to be able
to make course corrections between meetings. We should arm ourselves with
the administrative tools to be able to do that.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
Chair, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: "David James" <djz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 1:33 PM
Subject: [RPRWG] Outline ordering
>
> Editors,
>
> I would like to proposse changing (slightly) the ordering of clauses
> proposed last week:
>
> From (last weeks):
> Annex I: Code examples
> Annex J: Stratum clock distribution
> Annex K: Implementation guidelines
>
> To:
> Annex I: Stratum clock distribution
> Annex J: Implementation guidelines
> Annex K: Code examples
>
> The reason is rather pragmatic; the C-code section has a
> distinct format (landscape, rather than portrait). Thus,
> it is more difficult to switch section formats twice if
> this is surrounded by normal text. Better for the editor
> and the reader is the "special" stuff is at the end.
>
> DVJ
>
>
>
> David V. James, PhD
> Chief Architect
> Network Processing Solutions
> Data Communications Division
> Cypress Semiconductor
> 110 Nortech Parkway
> San Jose, CA 95134
> Work: +1.408.942.2010
> Cell: +1.650.954.6906
> Fax: +1.408.942.2099
> Work: djz@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Base: dvj@xxxxxxxxxxxx