RE: RESPONSE TO Re: SUPI<>XAUI
Rich:
My recollection reinforced by my rough meeting minutes agree with Geoff's
comments. His specific objection was to distribution of the text along with
the draft. While this joint distribution was not mentioned in the 802.3ae
motion, it was bound to the motion during the discussion.
From my rough meeting minutes (spelling and grammar yet to be corrected for
posting):
"TECHNICAL MOTION:
Move that IEEE 802.3 affirm the motion approved by P802.3ae Task Force
regarding parallel Clause 53 replacement.
M: Mr. Brown
S: Mr. Booth
Y: 56, N: 36, A: 45,
"The motion "Move that the P802.3ae Task Fore authorize an ad hoc to develop
a parallel draft targeted to replace SUPI/SS with an 8b/10b based signaling
method as proposed in taborek_3_1100.pdf. Final decision to be made at the
March Plenary." was displayed for discussion. The objection was that there
was no notice of this coming up at the meeting, and that it hadn't received
sufficient consideration. Mr. Thatcher expressed the opinion that the
presentation had been made in conformance with his rules and that others
could have created alternate proposals had they thought of it. Concern was
expressed by the process planned for this (specifically distributing the
proposed changes with the draft). The indication of a date for final
decision was also questioned."
I believe that a significant part of the opposition/abstention resulted from
the implications of the motion, not to the establishment of an Ad Hoc.
--Bob Grow
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 10:57 AM
To: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: HSSG
Subject: RESPONSE TO Re: SUPI<>XAUI
Rich-
Please see my comments mixed in and at the end of only the front portion of
your previous message.
At 11:58 AM 11/12/00 -0800, Rich Taborek wrote:
>Ladies and Gentlemen,
>
>Time to vent a little frustration over the events surrounding this issue
>at the Tampa meeting. ...
I understand your frustration, however, we live in country full of people
who are frustrated at the moment.
I think you mis-state the case as I will detail below.
>1) Perogative taken by the 802.3 chair to deem a motion to affirm a
>motion by the P802.3ae Task Force to form an ad hoc to further develop
>the proposal a technical, rather than procedural issue, thereby
>requiring approval of 75% of 802.3 voters. The resultant vote did not
>acquire the 75% needed to form the ad hoc. It should be noted that the
>P802.3ae Task Force approved a motion to form the ad hoc by more than
>75%. I fully understand that the reason given by the chair to decide
>that the motion was technical was that the further development of the
>proposal involved technical changes in a parallel clause. However, since
>no technical change was implied or imminent in the motion in question, I
>strongly disagree with the decision to call the motion technical instead
>of procedural.
This does not match my recollection. My objection was not to forming an Ad
Hoc. I am highly open to forming Ad Hocs as long as they have business that
supports the project. The objection was, rather, that the output of the Ad
Hoc was to be included with the draft for consideration as an alternative
proposal. Inclusion of material in a draft is and always has been a
technical decision.
>It now appears that the 75% criteria applies to most
>procedural 802.3 motions as well as technical ones.
>
>2) Reviewing the process of Task Force ad hoc formation, it appears that
>it is the chair's perogative to form an ad hoc and that approval by
>802.3 voters of 75% or even 50% is not required. It appears that an ad
>hoc with significantly greater technical implications to P802.3ae, the
>Equalization ad hoc, was approved in New Orleans with no motion in the
>Task Force or elsewhere as far as I can tell from my recollection and
>formal minutes of that meeting.
I was consulted on the formation of the Equalization Ad Hoc. I said that it
could live only as long as its output could be construed as being useful to
802.3ae. There was nothing in its formation that indicated that the group's
output would be anything other than material reported to the Task Force in
session. I understood that there was a distinct possibility that their
output would be too late to catch the draft. I told Jonathan that, at that
point, they would have to justify their existence to 802.3 as a standalone
group.
The 802.3ae group has a major task to narrow in on the final text. They
have a process for doing so. If there is need to repair a defect then it is
appropriate to open the draft back up. If there is not a defect then the
process should be one of ongoing convergence. Opening the process and the
draft up to large amounts of new text from alternate proposals is not
conducive to this process.
Sincerely,
Geoff