RE: [RPRWG] Outline ordering
John and David,
We think this is a reasonable change. We will follow this new outline ordering
for Gandalf proposal.
Jim
At 04:44 PM 12/3/2001 -0800, John Lemon wrote:
>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