Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of the 802.11g draft to RevCom
Dear Members of the SEC,
Bob's point number 2 below, if correct, would
be a near certain basis for disapproval at RevCom.
Disapproval is also near certain if any comments
associated with Disapprove ballots were received during
the last recirculation. In fact, this is sufficient cause
for a submittal to be automatically dropped from the RevCom
agenda when the last recirc closed after the submittal
deadline, as was the case with this project.
Disapproval would also be near certain if
the *verbatim* text of the comments and rebuttal were not
recirculated. An Excel spreadsheet of the comments received
from Gilb on the last recirc has been distributed to the members
of RevCom. In this spreadsheet it appears that:
A) The comments and proposed changes from Gilb have been
truncated, probably inadvertently as a result of a formatting
problem with the spreadsheet.
B) There are no rebuttals to the comments.
Perhaps there is a good explanation for all of this. If so,
the following questions must be answered:
I. Were ANY comments submitted with Disapprove ballots
in the last recirculation?
II. If comments were submitted with Disapprove ballots
in the last recirculation, were ALL of them withdrawn by the
balloter?
III. If comments were submitted with Disapprove ballots in
the last recirculation, and not withdrawn, were the comments
on material that had changed from the previously balloted
draft?
IV. Were ALL comments submitted with Disapprove ballots, that
had not been withdrawn, and that were made on material that
had changed from the previously balloted draft,
recirculated *verbatim*, along with a rebuttal,
to the ballot group?
You should expect to receive questions like this from RevCom.
It would be wise to have answers prepared. The desired
answers are: I. No, II. Yes, III. No, IV. Yes.
Howard Frazier
Member, IEEE SASB RevCom
Vice-Chairman, IEEE SASB
Grow, Bob wrote:
> Vote = NO.
>
>
>
> There are substantive procedural lapses in the ballot process which form
> the basis of my vote. I can't though help but describe some
> frustrations with the available documentation that increased the time
> required to review the ballot information and either introduce
> contradictions and or confusion about the ballot.
>
>
>
> It was very difficult to figure out which 802.11g drafts were balloted
> at sponsor ballot. (I would give URLs if the web site provided them,
> but the pull down menus do not update the URL so good luck in trying to
> replicate my descriptions.) From the pull down menu Group Updates /
> Task Groups / G, it appears that the initial sponsor ballot was on D6.2,
> the first recirculation ballot on D7.1, and the second recirculation
> ballot on D8.1, yet the ballot results (Group Updates / Ballot Results /
> Sponsor Ballots) list the second recirculation ballot on D8.2 as
> described in the ballot material.
>
>
>
> Second frustration. What is with all the comment spreadsheets on the
> 802.11 web site. With limited time, I had to assume that the one with
> the latest date was the final comment report for the specific ballot.
>
>
>
> Of substantive concern:
>
>
>
> 1. From the second page referenced above, it appears that the first
> recirculation ballot though listed as 15 days was only 14 complete days
> (14.xxx days) in violation of LMSC sponsor ballot periods.
>
>
>
> 2. After reviewing the comment database provided with the motion, I am
> concerned about the Gilb8 comment on line 20 of the comment summary.
> From the database, I am assuming that the comment was:
>
> a. Originally submitted on the initial D6.2 sponsor ballot (the Gilb23
> reference).
>
> b. Resubmitted on the second sponsor recirculation ballot (D8.2) as a
> technical comment.
>
> c. That the BRC on the second sponsor recirculation ballot reclassified
> the comment as editorial.
>
>
>
> While I find the willingness of the committee to perpetuate ambiguity in
> the specification with the continued use of both underscore and hyphen
> in primitive names disappointing, it is the procedural aspects that are
> the purview of the SEC. It is appropriate in the comment response for
> the BRC to respond that the issue is really editorial, it isn't the
> BRC's option to reclassify a comment that was the basis for a negative
> vote as being an editorial issue and therefore non-binding.
>
>
>
> 3. I couldn't find answers to some questions related to this comment:
>
>
>
> a. Why is there no Gilb 23 in the D6.2 comment database? (The comment
> database in the motion package indicates it was a "first sponsor ballot"
> comment.) I can't evaluate if the comment was the same as Gilb23 if I
> can't find it!)
>
> b. Did the commenter explicitly accept the reclassification of the
> second recirculation comment (Gilb8)?
>
>
>
> 4. Some comments in the motion package provided are resolved as
> "Counter" with recommended changes to the document. (Moreton 18, and
> 19). Though I am unfamiliar with the term Counter (and I couldn't find
> it defined on the 802.11 web site), it looks like what 802.3 names
> "Accept in Principle" where the commenter has raised a valid problem but
> a different remedy is implemented than that recommended by the
> commenter. (This might be transferable to the frustration section but
> it is impossible to determine on which ballot these comments were entered.)
>
>
>
> --Bob Grow
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 6:32 PM
> To: IEEE802
> Subject: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of the
> 802.11g draft to RevCom
>
> Dear SEC members,
>
> This is a 15 day SEC email ballot to make a determination by an SEC
> motion to authorize forwarding 802.11g Draft 8.2 to RevCom.
>
> Moved by Stuart J. Kerry
> Seconded by Bob Heile
>
> The email ballot opens on Wednesday May 21st, 2003 10PM ET and closes
> Thursday June 5th, 2003 10PM ET.
>
> Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector with a CC directly to
> me (p.nikolich@ieee.org).
>
> Regards,
>
> - Paul Nikolich
>
> SUPPORTING INFORMATION / DOCUMENTATION Below:
>
> +++++++++
>
> LAST SPONSOR BALLOT RESULTS:
>
> Ballot: P802.11g/D8.2 2nd IEEE Recirculation Ballot which Closed
> 2003-05-14, and obtained a 95% approval.
>
> This ballot has met the 75% returned ballot requirement.
> 96 eligible people in this ballot group.
> 64 affirmative votes
> 3 negative votes with comments
> 0 negative votes without comments
> 10 abstention votes
> =====
> 77 votes received = 80% returned
> 12% abstention
>
> The 75% affirmation requirement is being met.
> 64 affirmative votes
> 3 negative votes with comments
> =====
> 67 votes = 95% affirmative
>
> +++++++++
>
> RESULTS OF TASK GROUP G AND 802.11 WG MOTIONS at DALLAS 802.11 session
> (May 2003):
>
> Move to Forward IEEE 802.11g Draft 8.2 to the IEEE 802 SEC and to RevCom
> for Final Approval
>
> Task Group G: 26 / 0 / 0
> 802.11 WG: 102 / 0 / 2
>
> +++++++++
>
> SUMMARY OF REMAINING VOTERS ISSUES:
>
> Attached is a summary of status of the three "no" voters
> (O'Farrell, Moreton, Gilb) and the one new "yes" with comments voter
> (Monteban).
>
> Tim O'Farrell, Supergold
>
> Tim voted NO on the first Sponsor Ballot, i.e. Draft 6.1 of IEEE
> 802.11g. We have not been able to contact him sense. E-mails were sent
> on both recirculation ballots requesting his response. At the April
> 2003 session of 802.11g, multiple attempts were made to contact Tim to
> no avail. On the first recirculation ballot, Tim provided five
> comments. One comments was editorial, and it was accepted. The other
> four comments were technical. Tim had two comments related to removing
> optional functionality, which were both rejected. Tim also had two
> comments related to ACR which were both rejected.
>
> - Summary for Tim O'Farrell
> o Voted "No" on first sponsor ballot
> o Has not voted on last of the recirculation ballots
> o Attempts at contact have failed
>
> Mike Moreton, Synad
>
> Mike voted NO WITH COMMENTS on Draft 8.2. All of Mike comments
> were editorial. Mike currently maintains his NO vote based on
> previously circulated comments.
>
> - Summary for Mike Moreton
> o Voted "No" on Draft 8.2 based on previously submitted technical
> comments
> o Submitted no new technical comments on Draft 8.2
> o Submitted 7 editorial comments
> o All editorial comments were rejected
>
> James Gilb, Appairent
>
> James also voted NO WITH COMMENTS on Draft 8.2. All of James
> comments have previously been circulated. James maintains his NO vote
> base on previously circulated comments.
>
> - Summary for James Gilb
> o Voted "No" on Draft 8.2
> o Submitted 14 technical and editorial comments on Draft 8.2
> o None of the technical comments are new
> o All comments were rejected
>
> Leo Monteban, Agere
>
> Leo voted YES WITH COMMENTS on Draft 8.2. Leo submitted two
> editorial comments. Both editorial comments were found to be
> non-substantive by IEEE 802.11 Task Group G, thus both were rejected.
>
> - Summary for Leo Monteban
> o Cast a "Yes" vote with two comments
> o Both comments were editorial
> o Both comments were rejected
>
> +++++++++
>
> All Comment Resolutions are included in Doc#: 11-03-381 rev.7 as posted
> to the 802.11 web site, which contains all the comments from the
> recirculation of Draft 8.2. . A copy of which is attached for you
> convenience. The document also contains Tim O'Farrell's comment from
> the first sponsor ballot and Mike Moreton's and James Gilb's comments
> from the first ballot.
>
>
>
> As there were no new no votes or comments and no subsequent change was
> made to the 802.11g Draft 8.2, this ballot is concluded and D8.2 and
> supporting documentation will be forwarded to RevCom for action at the
> upcoming meeting in June.
>
> / Stuart
> _______________________________
>
> Stuart J. Kerry
> Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG
>
> Philips Semiconductors, Inc.
> 1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
> San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
> United States of America.
>
> Ph : +1 (408) 474-7356
> Fax: +1 (408) 474-7247
> Cell: +1 (408) 348-3171
> eMail: stuart.kerry@philips.com
> _______________________________
>