| Yuji,
The answer to your question is yes, I would deem a request for another presentation on technical data about GI_POF as outside the current scope for P802.3cz, unless it is to be heard during the discussion of a motion to modify our project documents (PAR, CSD and Objectives). (You failed to quote the motion caveat from my email.)
I base this on Objectives serving two purposes. First, they indicate what our draft will need to address to be considered technically complete and thus eligible for WG ballot; and second they serve as a notice to the 802.3 WG of what we are working on in greater detail than does the PAR project scope.
A 15m maximum reach PHY type as an alternative to 40m maximum reach PHY types would be within the first purpose of our IEEE 802.3 approved Objectives; but the 15 m PHY types fail with the second purpose. I have allowed discussion of things outside the scope of our project documents to go on far too long. So as an example, if a motion was proposed to amend the P802.3cz link reach objectives 9 through 12 changing the reach number from 40m to 15m on each of those objectives, then the presentation you cite would be heard, but only as argument for modification of the objectives, and held during the discussion of the motion.
There are alternate ways to modify our Objectives to place such a presentation in our scope of work. Hopefully obvious — after such a motion were to pass modifying our Objectives, and those Objectives are approved by IEEE 802.3, then of course I would evaluate a future presentation against the new objectives and in the case of all objectives being "...up to at least 15 m...” no longer deem the presentation request you cite as being outside our scope of work.
I would note that we have passed the deadline for presentation requests for our 12 October teleconference. While I have tried to review late presentations to enable them to be presented, and will continue to do so I think I have always asked the TF if there is any objection to hearing a late presentation (an implicit unanimous consent to suspend procedures for presentations and modify the agenda presentation list).
Because there is no procedural requirement to announce motions in advance, I will attempt to run meetings in a transparent way that allows participants a more efficient way to dispute the Chair deciding that a presentation is outside our scope of work than is provided by the IEEE formal appeals process.
1. What I plan to do if I determine any presentation request out-of-scope is to place the presentation request data on the Presentation list (part of the Agenda) clearly indicating it as having been deemed out-of-scope for our project (e.g., strikethrough text). This will provide the TF visibility of a TF Chair’s decision. It also creates a decision or ruling of the Chair during the meeting that can be appealed during the meeting (e.g., during the approval of the agenda).
2. Under Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised, a member is not supposed to criticize a ruling of the Chair, but can Appeal the ruling/decision of the Chair. (BTW, your statement of disagreement with me on the reflector, not in a meeting, is not limited by this and is acceptable.) This appeal has to happen almost immediately. So, my mention of a participant using this option during approval of the agenda (as suggested in my email. below). Because we use Roberts Rules as a guide and don’t necessarily follow it to the letter, the actual appeal motion wording is not critical. But, a motion to appeal would have to be made and seconded by participants allowed to make motions and vote (i.e., IEEE 802.3 voters on a teleconference). The Chair is allowed to speak first and last on the appeal motion, and it is defined as requiring a majority vote to pass.
3. You and I agree that this is a procedural issue, but I believe you misread Clause 9 of the WG P&P. The first paragraph speaks to things that are not within the scope of an IEEE appeal (i.e. technical issues to be resolved in other ways like balloting), the second paragraph speaks to the procedural issue (discuss with the WG and LMSC Chairs informally). As our WG Chair often describes things, a TF is the “errand child of the Working Group”. Using that principle, you have discussed with me to a limited degree and I assess that we remain in disagreement about what is appropriate to discuss within our approved scope of work. The next step would be to discuss your concerns with the WG Chair, Mr. Law, and if that is unsatisfactory, then discuss with the LMSC Chair, Mr. Nikolich. Remaining unsatisfied, you fulfilled your obligation to resolve informally and have the option to file a formal written appeal as outlined in Clause 9 (and its subclauses) of the LMSC P&P.
Respectfully,
Bob
Hello Bob, Regarding your below e-mail, may I confirm what you mean? > I as TF Chair announced that future presentation and discussion on these previously discussed topics may be deemed by the TF Chair as out of scope because of our PAR, CSD responses and Objectives. Do you mean that you will deem a new presentation about additional technical data about GI-POF as out of scope of 802.3cz? If your answer is yes, I have objection to your idea. As I already presented in the TF, my proposal has both 980nm + OM3 channel and 850nm + GI-POF channel in the same document. I believe this is within our Objectives because they are under the same draft. In addition, clause 9 in IEEE 802 WG P&P states how to show objection to technical decision. I think this is a procedural matter, rather than technical, and I feel something strange to apply this clause to this matter. Best regards, As obvious to participants during our September interim teleconferences, we have been discussing for some time alternate PMDs that could be included in our draft. We have also discussed if some of these suggested PMD types are within the scope our objectives; or if we were to include multiple PMDs as alternatives if doing so would be consistent with our approved CSD response to the Distinct Identity criterion. There also has been discussion about proposals being consistent with other CSD criteria and the principles embodied in the CSD questions. (Our approved PAR, CSD responses, and Objectives are linked from the TF home page www.ieee.org/3/cz.) I as TF Chair announced that future presentation and discussion on these previously discussed topics may be deemed by the TF Chair as out of scope because of our PAR, CSD responses and Objectives. On these topics deemed out of scope, discussion and presentation will only be allowed in the context of motions to modify one or more of the project documents defining our scope of work. There was an objection to the above scope of work enforcement during the September interim meeting. For clarity, I will add to what was discussed during our teleconferences. The announced procedure to limit discussion to our approved scope of work does not preclude: 1. When the person chairing a meeting makes a ruling during the meeting, Roberts Rules of Order allows for appeal of the decision of the Chair (web search: Roberts Rules appeal decision of the Chair). For example if the TF Chair rules a presentation out of order for inclusion on the list of presentations during a meeting, it would be appropriate to appeal the decision of the Chair during discussion of approval of the Agenda. I also am open to private discussions with anyone concerned. Simnilarly, participants are able to bring any objections or comment on how I am conducting TF business to the attention of the WG Chair. Robert M. (Bob) Grow
Chair, P802.3cz Multi-Gigabit Optical Automotive Ethernet (OMEGA) Task Force
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
|