A little correction.
Hi Vivek,
Going into Hawaii Interim the only major item in 802.21 was MRPM
PAR. Without MRPM PAR Hawaii meeting would not have been complete.
There was no justification for closing 802.21 early in Wednesday pm2
session. We do have a Vice Chair, if the chair had to leave early for
whatever reason, the Vice Chair would have continued on Thursday and
we would have finished all agenda items.
MRPM will follow all means available to appeal the way LB3 was
handled as well as how Hawaii Interim was handled.
We will present all the evidence to IEEE SA management that is
available to us and make our case.
MRPM Chair will consult all persons involved in this matter to
present the strongest case possible for MRPM, we had it enough.
Does anybody know any other SG that had 24 or more approve votes
other than MRPM? What is the reason for denying MRPM PAR to be sent to EC?
Kind regards,
Behcet
----- Original Message ----
From: "Gupta, Vivek G" <vivek.g.gupta@intel.com>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>; Peretz (Peretz) Feder
<pfeder@ALCATEL-LUCENT.COM>
Cc: "STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008 1:52:04 PM
Subject: RE: [802.21] MRPM PAR: WG LB-3
Some comments below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Behcet Sarikaya
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 07, 2008 3:49 AM
*To:* Peretz (Peretz) Feder
*Subject:* Re: [802.21] MRPM PAR: WG LB-3
Hi Peretz,
Thank you for raising this issue. Let me complete Vivek's answer.
You were not in Hawaii so you have not seen what happened there. You
were not in Denver nor in Jacksonville but that's none of my business.
In Hawaii interim, probably for the first time in 802.21's history,
the closing plenary was held in pm2 session on Wednesday.
*/[VG] For the first time we had less than five SB comments to resolve
in the Sept meeting as opposed to 100s that we normally have. Most of
the SGs were pretty light with their agenda as well and gave up their
slots for Wed and Thu. As such we did not have agenda items for
Thursday. All SG Chairs were consulted on this aspect on Tuesday
evening and based on that the plan was to close at end of Wednesday.
However when MRPM met on Wed morning (AM1), based on comments and
discussion it was clear that they were not gonna get done with their
PAR at Hawaii. As such in conjunction with key MRPM folks (and MRPM SG
Chair) it was thought (during Wed AM1 coffee break) that a WG LB may
be the best way to go forward with MRPM PAR. That would give them more
time to complete their PAR with a better chance of success. MRPM did
not express any interest in using the Mon/Tue evening slots that are
available during interims as well. The closing plenary was
subsequently moved to Wed PM2 session./*
We started Wednesday pm2 session as MRPM SG session. About 15 minutes
later Vivek took over and ran the closing plenary. He is known to have
gone to the airport Wednesday night. I have witnesses on this.
*/[VG] My own personal decision to get back to mainland US at end of
Wed was not made until late Wed afternoon. I was originally supposed
to leave on Thursday evening. The decision was made more because we
had no agenda items for Thursday. As it turns out I did eventually
leave Kona on Thursday./*
However, during the closing plenary, as Vivek mentioned below, the
motion on MRPM PAR was accepted.
*/[VG] This was the motion to conduct a WG LB on MRPM PAR because the
PAR was not yet done (and not to approve MRPM PAR as might appear)./*
MRPM SG met on Thursday to continue to discuss the PAR/5C. While other
WGs were having their regular meetings, we could not because 802.21
closing plenary was already held. The meeting we held was then called
an adhoc meeting in IEEE.
After we completed the PAR, I put up the motion. It was dicussed and
decided that no motion was needed because 802.21 motion for letter
ballot was already accepted. So we unanymously accepted the straw poll
and the meeting was closed. With this MRPM SG was able to submit its
PAR/5C which is now being voted.
*/[VG] Even during the WG closing plenary there were no issues to
closing on Wed evening. The reason why MRPM PAR has been in difficulty
is partly because it started with another relatively different version
in Hawaii and there were too many changes being made. Online editing
did not go very well during Sept meeting. As it stands even now the
PAR requires some more work before it can be forwarded to 802EC. /*
*/Best Regards -Vivek/*
----- Original Message ----
From: "Gupta, Vivek G" <vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM>
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2008 5:47:38 AM
Subject: Re: [802.21] MRPM PAR: WG LB-3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Feder, Peretz (Peretz) [mailto:pfeder@alcatel-lucent.com]
*Sent:* Saturday, October 04, 2008 9:27 PM
*To:* Gupta, Vivek G
*Subject:* RE: [802.21] MRPM PAR: WG LB-3
Well Vivek, the notes clearly indicate that the SG was in an adhoc
meeting and that the decision to forward the PAR by the SG was
a straw poll in the adhoc SG meeting.
*/[VG] I am not sure which notes are these. But as I pointed before
this motion was approved in WG meeting./*
So I donʼt think the MRPM PAR was approved before the WG approved to
conduct an LB.
*/[VG] There was a motion brought forward to approve the PAR in WG by
a LB and that passed and hence this ballot is on./*
Peretz Feder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@intel.com]
*Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2008 7:06 PM
*To:* Feder, Peretz (Peretz)
*Subject:* RE: [802.21] MRPM PAR: WG LB-3
Peretz,
The decision to conduct a LB on this PAR was taken during the regular
WG meeting.
A motion was passed to that effect.
Further discussion on the PAR happened in an ad hoc group.
Best Regards
-Vivek
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Feder, Peretz (Peretz) [mailto:pfeder@alcatel-lucent.com]
*Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2008 3:40 PM
*To:* Gupta, Vivek G
*Cc:* STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* FW: [802.21] MRPM PAR: WG LB-3
Vivek:
How can our working group consider PAR approval LB motion for a
decision taken in an ad-hoc study group meeting that based the call
for approval on a straw poll?
Am I the only one failing to see the logic and the process taken here?
Peretz Feder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM]
*Sent:* Saturday, September 20, 2008 6:56 PM
*Subject:* [802.21] MRPM PAR: WG LB-3
Multi-Radio Power Management related presentations/discussions have
been going on in 802.21 for almost two years.
The MRPM SG was created in July-2007.
Motions to approve the PAR produced by this group failed on two
occasions in Jan-2008 and in March-2008.
Thereafter this group has gone ahead and done further work. The latest
PAR from this group is now available at:
http://mentor.ieee.org/802.21/file/08/21-08-0250-06-mrpm-par-for-mrpm.doc
Below are instructions for WG LB-3 which asks the question to approve
this PAR and forward it to 802EC for consideration at the Nov-08 meeting:
http://mentor.ieee.org/802.21/file/08/21-08-0281-00-0000-lb-3-instructions.doc
Ballot opening Date: Sep 20, 2008
Ballot closing date: Oct 04, 2008, AOE (Anywhere on Earth)
Best Regards
-Vivek