RE: [802SEC] [TIME-SENSITIVE MOTION] to APPROVE FCC FILINGS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:billq@attglobal.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 2:27 PM
> To: wk3c@fast.net
> Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] [TIME-SENSITIVE MOTION] to APPROVE FCC
> FILINGS
>
>
> Carl,
>
> I very much appreciate your response.
You are quite welcome.
> My purpose in requesting this information was not to nitpick
> whether a quorum was present, but get a better understanding of the
> breadth of support for the position statements (guidance, if you
> will).
Understood.
> I understand that these positions are important to the
> wireless working
> groups and that they must be filed in a timely manner.
>
> Unfortunately in this day of ever present spinmeisters, I have a
> knee jerk reaction to anyone telling me how I should view something
> without providing me the supporting data. In this case, phrases
> like
> "the fact
> that the documents were so overwhelmingly approved by the 3
> wireless WGs" generate such a reaction when not accompanied with
> the
> actual votes.
It certainly was never my intention to engage in "spinmeisterism" :-)
In my original motion, I stated " ... with well more than 75%
approval in
each case," which was accurate as far as the votes went, but perhaps
not detailed enough.
> While as I understand the IEEE, IEEE-SA and 802 rules, the 802 SEC
> can issue such a position statement as an 802 position without
> approval of the working group(s), I disagree that the WG votes are
> irrelevant. The
> SEC is being asked to take this position at the request of
> the wireless
> WGs and it is relevant for the SEC to understand the breadth
> of wireless WG support.
You are correct that WG support is not "irrelevant" ... I was
only refering to the technical matter of whether the WG votes
were REQUIRED for the SEC to make a decision ... I agree whole-
heartedly that understanding the breadth of WG support is an
important insight.
> For instance, the 13/3/13 vote of 802.15 on 18-02-005
> (Comments on NPRM)
> while clearly approving the position by greater than 75% of
> those voting
> approve or disapprove, is not in my opinion "overwhelming
> approval". The fact that I disagree with the "overwhelming
> approval"
> characterization does not mean that I will vote disapprove. I
> simply want the actual vote data so that I can make the judgment
> for myself.
In the future, I will endeavour to provide more detailed inputs.
> I will note that you appear to have misunderstood what I was
> seeking in
> my second question. I was asking for the number of
> individuals in each
> of the WG who have voting rights in that WG, not the number of
> members present at the meeting was present when the votes were
> taken. While that information could be used to determine whether a
> quorum was
> present, that was not my goal. My interest was in determining the
> breadth of support relative to all of the voters in each WG. Again
> guidance.
Actually, I did understand your question and the distinction between
"how many voting members EXIST" and "how many voting members WERE
THERE"
... I just don't know the current number of voting members in either
.11, .15, or .16, so I couldn't answer your question. I also did not
know
how many total voting members were in attendance in Sydney.
Regards,
Carl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3
iQA/AwUBPPaCNgK2hSca9giwEQLKFACfR/7oVYcMoT7WaskM9kze9cZYBjoAnArd
H19n1BLUtiO5J3rThDQfsIsz
=0cgk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----