| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| Carlos: Sorry for the slow response, but I’ve been thinking about your question. We haven’t been doing this previously, but I received a number of comments about the source of contributions for the May meeting being all KDPOF. So, it might be good to add to the May meeting page something like Co-Located PMD Ad Hoc and put the presentations under that heading. People reviewing the web site prior to July would then see a broader participation. Let’s do it. On another topic. David Law again expressed his wish that we postpone until September advancement to WG ballot. That of course is only possible if the proposed rules change allowing that passes in July. He is hoping that we could pass a motion allowing either going ahead in July or in September if the rules change allowing it passes. We will still presubmit the draft as we can’t be sure the rules change will pass. I think David is motivated in this preference by a number of factors. 1. If I have it right, three projects will be pre-submitting for WG ballot in July. If all are successful, that means that all three will need to be balloted between July and September. That is a very heavy balloting load for WG members. Especially when considering that two other projects are in WG ballot recirculation now (br, bq), and one in Sponsor ballot recalculation (bw). 2. The other projects have undergone many more TF reviews than we have. (Going into the May meeting, bn = 5, bp = 5, bv = 1). 3. We will not be pre-submitting a technically complete draft, but instead will be completing the draft in July. We will compare unfavorably to the other two projects on this and the amount of review. P802.3bw suffers from the same perception of a single company driving the work, but probably less so than we do. It went through limited TF review and in my opinion went to WG ballot technically incomplete (no PICS). —Bob On May 26, 2015, at 12:36 AM, Carlos Pardo <carlospardo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|