FW: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize conditional forwarding of P802.11g/D6.1 to Sponsor Ballot

["Bob O'Hara" <bob@airespace.com>]

I vote Approve.

This situation is, in many ways, far from ideal. I don't believe that
Procedure 10 was intended for email votes, and I prefer that it not
be used that way. Also, there have been a number of problematic
aspects of the motion that have taken far too much SEC time to
resolve. I sincerely hope that this motion doesn't set any
precedents, because it is not one to emulate.

On the other hand, Procedure 10 is formally applicable, because
"ballot resolution efforts have been substantially completed and the
approval ratio is sufficient." (And, by the way, while it's not
apparent in the motion, earlier 802.11g drafts went through two
previous WG ballots, reaching approval ratios over 80%; It's not
clear to me why those ballots were tossed out instead of
recirculated.)

The question, as I see it, is whether this draft ready for sponsor
ballot IF it meets the conditions of Procedure 10. I don't whether it
will meet those conditions but, if it does, then I think it's ready.
That's why I'm voting Approve.

Roger


>Dear SEC,
>
>This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the
>below SEC motion to conditionally forward IEEEE P802.11g/D6.1 to
>LMSC Sponsor Ballot, moved by Stuart Kerry, seconded by Mat Sherman.
>
>The email ballot opens on Saturday January 25 12noon EST and
>closes Tuesday February 4 12noon EST.
>
>Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector and to Matthew
>Shoemake, chair of the 802.11g task group.
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul Nikolich
>
>
>Subject:  SEC Motion: Conditionally forward P802.11g/D6.1 for Sponsor
Ballot.
>Moved: Stuart Kerry    Second: Matthew Sherman
>
>MOTION: To conditionally forward IEEE P1802.11g/D6.1 ("Draft
>Ammendment for Further Higher data rate extension in the 2.4GHz
>band") for Sponsor Ballot.
>
>Explanation:
>
>The Working Group 802.11g Letter Ballot 50 ("To forward IEEE
>P802.11g/D5.1 for Sponsor Ballot") ran from November 27, 2002 to
>January 8, 2003.
>
>The results were:
>Approve: 256   Disapprove: 34   Approval Ratio: 88% [75% required]
>Abstain: 18    Ballots: 308     Elligble Voters:321     Return
>Ratio:    96% [50% required]
>Comments (no votes) : 185
>
>The Ballot Resolution Committee met January 13-17th, and as a result
>several voters confirmed they would change their votes based on
>D6.1.  The updated vote tally is as follows:
>
>Approve: 281   Disapprove: 9   Approval Ratio: 97% [75% required]
>Abstain: 18    Ballots: 308     Elligble Voters:321     Return
>Ratio:    96% [50% required]
>Comments (unresolved no votes): 57
>
>Responses to the comments developed by a Ballot Resolution
>Committee, and the comments, responses and draft P802.11g/D6.1 are
>in the process of being recirculated (January 20, 2003 to February
>6, 2003).
>
>For a full report of the Letter Ballot, see the attached Excel
Spreadsheet
>
>* Comments that support the remaining disapprove votes and Working
>Group responses.
>
>The NO comments are contained in the attached spread sheet. There
>are 57 total comments. Of these comments Task Group G counter 29 of
>them and rejected 28 of them. There are many duplicate comments, and
>they have all been included for completeness.
>
>* Remaining schedule for balloting and comment resolution if new no
>votes are received
>
>These will be handled (if necessary) at the March Plenary session
>(March 10-14 2003).
>
>* Additional Information
>
>IEEE 802.11 document 11-02-714 tracks the progress of 802.11g
>voting. The document is attached.
>
>* Clarifying Questions
>
>What didn't IEEE 802.11 ask for conditional approval at the ExCom
>meeting in November 2002?
>
>At the November 2002 meeting, the results of Letter Ballot 50 were
>not back yet, so the requiremetns to introduce the motion to ExCom
>could not be met at that time.
>
>What's the harm in waiting until the March 2003 session to vote on
this?
>
>There is enough time between the January 2003 session and the March
>2003 session to do a Working Group Recirculation Ballot and a
>Sponsor Ballot and have the results back by the March 2003 session.
>Doing so will allow IEEE 802.11g to make quick progress. Waiting
>until the March 2003 session may delay IEEE 802.11g at least two
>months.