Ogura-san,
I am still perplexed at your continued objection to a contribution highlighting voting results that are public information in the minutes but that is really not the primary purpose of this note to the reflector.
I do want to note a specific example of names being referenced in contributions in the past projects:
When I compare past projects, we had a similar situation in IEEE 802.3ae that we currently face in IEEE 802.3cz. There were multiple PMDs being proposed to support the project. I sent a note to the reflector with a specific list of questions
to try to understand the motivations for various PMD proposals. My name ended up being the title of the second slide of the linked contribution below!! The contribution listed at least 3 other’s position. Was I upset? No, because I was extremely comfortable
with my position and was not concerned that my position was included since it was already known in the e-mail to the reflector. There really is nothing wrong with trying to understand others point of view – that is how we develop consensus.
That contribution was 21 years ago and I am happy to report that short wavelength VCSELs over MMF are still the number one optical port type in terms of volume being shipped into data centers today.
There are some other important lessons in this contribution:
- “With equivalent volumes and appropriate investment in manufacturing infrastructure, there is no reason to believe that 1310 transceivers require any significant premium over 850 nm transceivers”
- This turned out to be false
- “Don’t want to fragment the market and artificially limit competition”
- This is true
- “Howard spoke in favor of just two PMD’s because this is the least amount of work and we’d get the standard done much quicker
- Volume will drive cost, the more choices we have the lower the chance of getting high volume on any one”
- This is true
- “Customers don’t like confusion; in fact they want one solution that works everywhere
- We will not get the focus in the market place if we have to talk to the market about multiple port types
- Ten options is way too many for me as a systems provider, my customers will throw me out of their office”
- This is true
- “The group is not focused on the hard decision
- Time to market is very key [confusion will delay]
- The problem with allowing 5 options is that you have to support all five long term”
- This is true and is true in 802.3cz – we participate in Standards and get paid to make hard decisions
But what I really want to talk about is how we can move forward in our project; it is my view that the most important thing we can do is approve a baseline PMD text – this would allow TF members to comment on a complete draft and, through
the comment resolution process, we can make the hard decisions.
My view:
- I submitted a complete PMD baseline proposal on August 3, 2021 based on a 980nm VCSEL and OM3 multimode optical fiber
- My choices of 980nm and OM3 fiber have been questioned
- Why not consider other wavelengths, e.g. 850nm and 1310nm?
- Why not consider other media, e.g., GIPOF?
- Why not consider other PMDs, e.g. SiP?
- My decision to base the proposal on 980nm VCSEL and OM3 multimode optical fiber was not arrived at without a review of the body of work in IEEE 802.3cz
- It was based on my technical consideration of all of the contributions in IEEE 802.3cz to date
- My conclusions
- I firmly believe that this PMD will be the lowest cost PMD of all of those considered
- I firmly believe that 980nm VCSELs can/will be supported by multiple vendors if we make that decision
- I firmly believe that 980nm VCSELs will provide better reliability than 850nm VCSELs
- I don’t believe that a wideband receiver accommodating both 850nm and 980nm transmitters will be as cost effective as one based on a single wavelength
- I don’t believe that SiP over multimode fiber is the right decision for this project
- Bottom-line: I believe that a solution based on a 980nm VCSEL and OM3 multimode optical fiber will meet all of the objectives and the CSDs for the automotive application and is our best choice moving forward
Of course, I could be wrong but that is my position today. I will certainly listen and consider other points of view and look forward to competing contributions that we can review.
We are a contribution driven organization, and to date, I have not seen any contributions on wavelength or media types that convince me from a technical point of view to change my conclusion noted above. I have also not seen complete
proposal for baseline text that changes my mind on any of the observations that I made above.
I remain hopeful that we can come to consensus,
Steve
Steven E. Swanson
Senior Standards Manager
Distinguished Associate
Global Technology & Industry Standards
MT&E
Corning Optical Communications
4200 Corning Place
Charlotte, NC 28216
m 607-725-1129
Standards are a bridge between markets and technologies; whoever controls the bridge controls the future…
From: Ichiro Ogura <i-ogura@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 11:03 PM
To: STDS-802-3-OMEGA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_OMEGA] Ichiro Ogura: Re: [802.3_OMEGA] [EXTERNAL]--[802.3_OMEGA] What happened: Re: [802.3_OMEGA] Request for specific questions on straw polls of August 3rd
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 11:03 PM
To: STDS-802-3-OMEGA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_OMEGA] Ichiro Ogura: Re: [802.3_OMEGA] [EXTERNAL]--[802.3_OMEGA] What happened: Re: [802.3_OMEGA] Request for specific questions on straw polls of August 3rd
Dear Bob,
I understand we can open the results by name what we cooperate in the TF.
I still don't understand we can freely use it in the second use. I thought the presentation by Ruben is close to the moral hazard.
I am not related to Ruben's affiliation, but imagine if my customer do the same thing. I understand Ruben wants to go forward but the conduct he took
is very dangerous-a kind threatening. He clearly mentioned the aim was to give pressure who answered abstain and no.
I understand IEEE is individual-base, but It's my first time in long participation that my name is listed because of voting "no".
As Richard mentioned, this kind of conversation has been taken place in the background as a common rule.
I also work hard to contribute to TF, but this time this rule is not acceptable.
Regards,
Ichiro
On 2021/08/18 2:51, ROBERT GROW wrote:
Colleagues,
I think I covered this in today’s (17 Aug) teleconference, but I’ll attempt to put things into writing and provide more detail on the rationale I provided on today’s teleconference.
The IEEE SA process incorporates a set of principles: transparency, openness, consensus, balance, due process, and right of appeal. Where there aren’t specific rules, I as Chair will base decisions
on these principles and any relevant corollary I find in the rules. You will note that remaining anonymous is not one of these principles. In fact, keeping things anonymous, in my opinion, is contrary to the principles of transparency and openness.
The IEEE SA ballot process underscores this. Under the rules, I can’t vote NO on a project without providing comments that explain my no vote. If I do vote no without providing comments the
vote is not counted as a "Do Not Approve", it is counted as a “Do Not Approve (Negative without comment)” (the preceding quoted terms from the Standards Board Operations Manual, 5.4.3.2) . We mark comments as “R” (required for WG ballot) or “MBS” (must be
satisfied for SA ballot) to indicate those comments that are part of (tied to) our Do Not Approve vote as also required in 5.4.3.2. (I expect you as participants understand that “No”, “Nay”, “Negative”, “Disapprove” and “Do not Approve” all mean the same thing.)
We expect comments to support a Negative vote, and we clearly identify who submitted such comments in the ballot process.
There really aren’t any “rules” on straw polls. I believe it is consistent with the principles of transparency and openness to allow the requester of a straw poll to request that the poll be
recorded by individual votes. While this would be burdensome when meeting in person, it isn’t burdensome on a teleconference. (You may have noticed that voting in 802.3 meetings and our straw polls in P802.3 are actually more efficient than when we have to
get counters and count raised hands in an in-person meeting.) When we meet in-person anyone can look around the room to see how individuals are voting by show of hands. Teleconferences are different than in-person meetings and I believe it is consistent with
IEEE SA principles to allow the requester of a straw poll to request that the poll be recorded by individual vote to provide a similar capability of being able to look around the room.
You may recall that the straw poll of 18 May referenced during the 17 August teleconference taught me something about WebEx. On my view of a poll as a Web-Ex host, it was there in text next to
the poll that it was being recorded individually. When I learned that non-host WebEx participants didn’t have the same notice, I instructed our Secretary to exclude the individual responses that were recorded on 18 May from the minutes. I did that because
our process needs to be transparent. Since 18 May, I have attempted to make it very clear when straw polls were being recorded as individual responses and consequently have recorded individual responses in the minutes.
As I explained during the 17 August teleconference, minutes are public information. I am unaware of any rules that prevent someone from including information in the minutes in a presentation
(this includes anything recorded in the minutes by name). If any of you are aware of a rule that would have required me to disallow the 17 August presentation or in the future anyone else from including any information recorded in the minutes in a presentation,
please inform me of that rule.
I think I have covered my rationale for including names above, and balloting rules are clearly a corollary to no votes on a straw poll, but in case someone wants my opinion of the identification
of “Abstain - Need more information” what I read when reviewing the presentation before posting, heard during the presentation, and read in the immediate below reflector email was a plea to please let the presenter know what specific information you need to
vote on the proposal a different way.
I know that personally, I am willing to provide anyone the reason why I vote the way I do on any motions or polls. Similarly, I am happy to share my personal opinion on any TF issues, even though
I often won’t express opinion on technical proposals before us and I typically do not vote because of the way business is conducted per Roberts Rules of Order. For those of you on the 17 August teleconference, you will understand I am not as reluctant to express
an opinion as WG Chair on process and the status of our project. In addition to the responsibility I have as TF Chair to conduct our business in accordance with our rules and that meets the IEEE SA principle of due process, I also have the responsibility as
TF Chair to keep the project progressing. I personally and as TF Chair want to see progress!
If you have any additional feedback for me or think I have not covered an important point on this issue (or other issues) I’m open to either private or public correspondence about that. You also
can bring any issues you might have in how I am conducting TF work to Mr. Law directly — or less responsive, the final IEEE SA principle, you have the right of appeal which is defined in our set of rules documents.
Robert M. (Bob) Grow
Chair, P802.3cz Multi-Gigabit Optical Automotive Ethernet (OMEGA) Task Force
Chair, P802.3cz Multi-Gigabit Optical Automotive Ethernet (OMEGA) Task Force
On Aug 17, 2021, at 5:00 AM, Rubén Pérez-Aranda <rubenpda@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Ogura-san,
Straw-polls' results are public now in our minutes. I announced on August 3 that I would send this email.
For many straw-polls and motions that I did, I received the answer from many participants that more information
is needed to justify negative votes or abstaining. I am willing to elaborate more information and give
answers to any question in order to get supporters for my baseline proposals and building consensus.
From a logical point of view, I cannot elaborate additional information if I do not know about which specific information
is missed, incomplete, etc. My desire to give you and everybody answers and additional information. Please, help me,
and let me know which specific information I should prepare.
Best regards,
Rubén Pérez-Aranda
CTO at KDPOF
_____________________________________________________________
Knowledge Development for POF, S.L.
A: Ronda de Poniente 14 2º CD, 28760, Tres Cantos (Madrid), Spain
P: +34 91 804 33 87 Ext:110
M: +34 689 319 866
El 2021 ago17, a las 12:57, Ichiro Ogura <i-ogura@xxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
Steve
I know, but one can send mail person by person not listing-up in the official presentation.
All we are allowed is to list-up supporters, I believe.
Thank you,
Ichiro
On 2021/08/17 19:42, Swanson, Steven E wrote:
I know, but one can send mail person by person not listing-up in the official presentation.
All we are allowed is to list-up supporters, I believe.
Thank you,
Ichiro
On 2021/08/17 19:42, Swanson, Steven E wrote:
Ogura-san,
In general, there is no issue with abstaining on a straw poll. However, Ruben’s straw polls had three options for abstaining:
Abstain: I need more information
Abstain: Lack of expertise
Abstain: I want to be neutral
On the 4 straw polls, you voted:
Straw poll 1: Abstain: need more information
Straw poll 2: Abstain: need more information
Straw poll 3: Abstain: need more information
Straw poll 4: No vote
Ruben is asking what information do you need for Straw polls 1-3?
If one votes “no” on a straw poll, what are the specific reasons why?
We cannot make progress if we don’t know your concerns with the proposals so the concerns can be addressed.
Steve
Sent from my personal assistant
On Aug 17, 2021, at 6:14 AM, Ichiro Ogura <i-ogura@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All,
I returned from my off-days and found Ruben's mail and presentation today, that is very surprising.
I just answered to his straw polls and my name is listed in his presentation, saying, hey these people answered "no" to my questions.
Also "abstain" is just "abstain" just because I am not confident to say "yes". Is it a violation to something?
Ruben, Stop doing this.
Bob, Is this allowed to list up people in the official presentation just because we say no (moreover just abstain)?
I apologize if may saying violates IEEE rules because I'm not a native.
Thank you.
Ichiro
On 2021/08/06 6:25, Rubén Pérez-Aranda wrote:
Dear all,
I reviewed the results of my straw polls of August 3rd 802.3cz AdHoc meeting, which have been published in the minutes.
In general, I understand the abstains due to lack of expertise and the abstains for being neutral, provided that these abstains
are not transformed with no reason in negative votes in the corresponding future motions.
However, I do not understand abstains based on the necessity of more information, because every question asked
during my contributions were answered by me, and for some of the baseline proposals even no questions were received.
On the other hand, I did not receive any opposition against the proposals of BER test mode, loopback modes and EEE. I would like
to understand the negative votes and solve the technical reasons behind.
For the 50G PCS/PMA proposal, we had several discussions and additional contribution was presented by me giving answers to
not asked questions.
You should understand that is impossible for me to imagine which kind of information is missed by you if no questions
are asked.
The following participants are requested to send specific questions so that I can provide the additional information that is missed
by abstainers and that is needed by negative voters to understand the proposals.
I will be pleased to elaborate specific contributions to address the questions.
Straw poll 1: BER test mode proposal
* Abstains that need more information:
* Ichiro Ogura PETRA
* Richard Pitwon Resolute Photonics
* Masato Shiino, FURUKAWA
* Tomohiro Kikuta Adamant Namiki Precision Jewel Co., Ltd.
* Nozomi Tsuzaki, Independent
* Hideki Isono Fujitsu Optical Components
* Negative votes:
* Takeo Masuda [OITDA/PETRA]
Straw poll 2: Loopback modes proposal
* Abstains that need more information:
* Ichiro Ogura PETRA
* Richard Pitwon Resolute Photonics
* Masato Shiino, FURUKAWA
* Takeo Masuda [OITDA/PETRA]
* Shigeru Kobayashi, AIO Core
* Hideki Isono Fujitsu Optical Components
Straw poll 3: EEE proposal
* Abstains that need more information:
* Richard Pitwon Resolute Photonics
* Masato Shiino, FURUKAWA
* Takeo Masuda [OITDA/PETRA]
* Negative votes:
* Ichiro Ogura PETRA
Straw poll 4: 50 Gb/s PCS/PMA proposal
* Abstains that need more information:
* Richard Pitwon Resolute Photonics
* Michikazu Aono - Yazaki
* Masato Shiino, FURUKAWA
* Yasuhiro Hyakutake, Adamant Namiki Precision Jewel
* Nobuyasu Araki YAZAKI
* Tomohiro Kikuta Adamant Namiki Precision Jewel Co., Ltd.
* Manabu Kagami - NITech
* Taiji Kondo, MegaChips
* Hideki Isono Fujitsu Optical Components
* Takehiro Hayashi HAT Lab - independent
* Negative votes:
* Takeo Masuda [OITDA/PETRA]
* Shigeru Kobayashi, AIO Core
* Hideki Goto Toyota
Thank you and best regards,
Rubén Pérez-Aranda
CTO at KDPOF
_____________________________________________________________
Knowledge Development for POF, S.L.
A: Ronda de Poniente 14 2º CD, 28760, Tres Cantos (Madrid), Spain
P: +34 91 804 33 87 Ext:110
M: +34 689 319 866
E: rubenpda@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rubenpda@xxxxxxxxx>
W: https://www.kdpof.com
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1
In general, there is no issue with abstaining on a straw poll. However, Ruben’s straw polls had three options for abstaining:
Abstain: I need more information
Abstain: Lack of expertise
Abstain: I want to be neutral
On the 4 straw polls, you voted:
Straw poll 1: Abstain: need more information
Straw poll 2: Abstain: need more information
Straw poll 3: Abstain: need more information
Straw poll 4: No vote
Ruben is asking what information do you need for Straw polls 1-3?
If one votes “no” on a straw poll, what are the specific reasons why?
We cannot make progress if we don’t know your concerns with the proposals so the concerns can be addressed.
Steve
Sent from my personal assistant
On Aug 17, 2021, at 6:14 AM, Ichiro Ogura <i-ogura@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All,
I returned from my off-days and found Ruben's mail and presentation today, that is very surprising.
I just answered to his straw polls and my name is listed in his presentation, saying, hey these people answered "no" to my questions.
Also "abstain" is just "abstain" just because I am not confident to say "yes". Is it a violation to something?
Ruben, Stop doing this.
Bob, Is this allowed to list up people in the official presentation just because we say no (moreover just abstain)?
I apologize if may saying violates IEEE rules because I'm not a native.
Thank you.
Ichiro
On 2021/08/06 6:25, Rubén Pérez-Aranda wrote:
Dear all,
I reviewed the results of my straw polls of August 3rd 802.3cz AdHoc meeting, which have been published in the minutes.
In general, I understand the abstains due to lack of expertise and the abstains for being neutral, provided that these abstains
are not transformed with no reason in negative votes in the corresponding future motions.
However, I do not understand abstains based on the necessity of more information, because every question asked
during my contributions were answered by me, and for some of the baseline proposals even no questions were received.
On the other hand, I did not receive any opposition against the proposals of BER test mode, loopback modes and EEE. I would like
to understand the negative votes and solve the technical reasons behind.
For the 50G PCS/PMA proposal, we had several discussions and additional contribution was presented by me giving answers to
not asked questions.
You should understand that is impossible for me to imagine which kind of information is missed by you if no questions
are asked.
The following participants are requested to send specific questions so that I can provide the additional information that is missed
by abstainers and that is needed by negative voters to understand the proposals.
I will be pleased to elaborate specific contributions to address the questions.
Straw poll 1: BER test mode proposal
* Abstains that need more information:
* Ichiro Ogura PETRA
* Richard Pitwon Resolute Photonics
* Masato Shiino, FURUKAWA
* Tomohiro Kikuta Adamant Namiki Precision Jewel Co., Ltd.
* Nozomi Tsuzaki, Independent
* Hideki Isono Fujitsu Optical Components
* Negative votes:
* Takeo Masuda [OITDA/PETRA]
Straw poll 2: Loopback modes proposal
* Abstains that need more information:
* Ichiro Ogura PETRA
* Richard Pitwon Resolute Photonics
* Masato Shiino, FURUKAWA
* Takeo Masuda [OITDA/PETRA]
* Shigeru Kobayashi, AIO Core
* Hideki Isono Fujitsu Optical Components
Straw poll 3: EEE proposal
* Abstains that need more information:
* Richard Pitwon Resolute Photonics
* Masato Shiino, FURUKAWA
* Takeo Masuda [OITDA/PETRA]
* Negative votes:
* Ichiro Ogura PETRA
Straw poll 4: 50 Gb/s PCS/PMA proposal
* Abstains that need more information:
* Richard Pitwon Resolute Photonics
* Michikazu Aono - Yazaki
* Masato Shiino, FURUKAWA
* Yasuhiro Hyakutake, Adamant Namiki Precision Jewel
* Nobuyasu Araki YAZAKI
* Tomohiro Kikuta Adamant Namiki Precision Jewel Co., Ltd.
* Manabu Kagami - NITech
* Taiji Kondo, MegaChips
* Hideki Isono Fujitsu Optical Components
* Takehiro Hayashi HAT Lab - independent
* Negative votes:
* Takeo Masuda [OITDA/PETRA]
* Shigeru Kobayashi, AIO Core
* Hideki Goto Toyota
Thank you and best regards,
Rubén Pérez-Aranda
CTO at KDPOF
_____________________________________________________________
Knowledge Development for POF, S.L.
A: Ronda de Poniente 14 2º CD, 28760, Tres Cantos (Madrid), Spain
P: +34 91 804 33 87 Ext:110
M: +34 689 319 866
E: rubenpda@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rubenpda@xxxxxxxxx>
W: https://www.kdpof.com
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1