Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Email Ballot +++ Approval of Liaison to WFA +++ Early Close



Roger, reading carefully, it is asking whether WFA would be interested in participating in such a standardization project and, if so, when they would have documents ready to submit.

 

It isn’t actually asking for contributions.

 

I think this sentence could be clearer as it seems more oriented toward asking for contributions rather than interest in future contributions:

“The 802.19 Working Group participants are interested in receiving inputs from the aforementioned groups that can be publicly shared among the 802 participants with the objective of producing a generalized inter-device/system coexistence test methodology using the IEEE 802 open standards development process.”

 

(It also has the somewhat unusual phrasing of saying that the WG participants are interested rather than saying that the WG is interested. It would be more usual for us to speak for the Working Group as a whole, not the WG participants.)

 

That sentence could have been worded better, but I think it is okay.

 

With some reservations as I think the start of the second paragraph doesn’t fit in well with what is being requested at the end of that paragraph and in the next paragraph, I vote approve.

 

Regards,

Pat

 

 

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Roger Marks
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2016 9:06 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Email Ballot +++ Approval of Liaison to WFA +++ Early Close

 

Disapprove. (It won’t matter to the approval, since I don’t believe that 8.1.1 specifies a supermajority requirement.)

 

I think the statement is asking for contributions of documentation to be considered as the basis of standardization (“using the IEEE 802 open standards development process”). To my knowledge, we don’t have a PAR for that. I think it’s a little misleading to ask for contributions, which we will make public, while giving the impression that those contributions will be going toward a standard, without providing notice that we are not authorized to develop such a standard.

 

[Steve: Yesterday, I accidentally sent this message in response to the 3GPP liaison ballot; please maintain my original vote as Approve on that one.]

 

Roger

 

 

On 2016Jan 22, at 11:28 AM, Shellhammer, Steve <sshellha@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:

 

Dear EC Members,

 

Paul has delegated the conduct of the EC electronic ballot on the following motion to me.

 

======

Background

 

At the January IEEE 802 meeting the attached liaison was approved by a vote of 4/0/0 of the 802.19 voting members and 11/0/0 of everyone in the room.

Since this is a liaison to an external body it requires a 2/3 approval rate, as per section 8.1.1 of the operations manual.

I am declaring an early close (see below).

 

Regards,

Steve

 

======

Motion

 

Approve the attached liaison (document: “19-16-0026-02-0000-draft-wfa-liaison-response”) from IEEE 802 to WFA.

Link to Document:

 

Move: Steve Shellhammer

Second: Subir Das

 

Start of ballot: Friday January 22, 2016

Close of ballot: February 1, 2016 11:59PM AOE

 

Early close: As required in subclause 4.1.2 'Voting rules' of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Operations Manual, this is notice that, to ensure the release is provided in a timely manner, this ballot may close early once sufficient responses are received to clearly decide a matter.

 

======

 

 

---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.

 

---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.

---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.