Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of the 802.11g draft to RevCom
RevCom does not want to see comments unless they are associated
with Disapprove ballots. Nor does RevCom want to see comments
that have been resolved to the satisfaction of the balloters
(provided there is proof of their satisfaction in writing).
The IEEE SA rules require that all unresolved comments associated
with Disapprove ballots and made on material that has changed from
the previously balloted draft be recirculated, verbatim,
along with a rebuttal.
This is in fact a very simple rule, and there is no ambiguity in it.
ANSI has the same rule. The unresolved comments described above
must be included in the RevCom submittal package, and they will also
be forwarded to the ANSI Board of Standards Review.
It has been asserted that the required recirculations took place
for IEEE P802.11g, but I am concerned that conflicting statements
have been provided. Comments were received from disapproving
balloters on the last recirculation. The report provided
by the IEEE-SA balloting center confirms this.
What I still cannot tell at this point, based on the answers that
have been provided thus far, is:
i. Were all of the comments received on the last recirculation
from disapproving balloters withdrawn? It appears that this
is not the case.
ii. Were any of the comments received on the last recirculation
from diapproving balloters and not withdrawn made against material
that had changed from the previously balloted draft? It appears
that this is the case.
iii. Were all of the comments received on the last recirculation
from disapproving balloters and not withdrawn and made against
material that had changed from the previously balloted draft
rebutted and recirculated? It appears that this is not the case.
The assertion:
> With all due respect, if this is our process, our process is broken.
> If all that has to be done to force a recirculation is for a single
> member to put in an editorial comment on a section that has change
> and vote disapprove, then an IEEE draft standard or amendment can
> be delayed indefinitely.
is incorrect. There is a simple and deterministic way to avoid
infinite delay and that is: Don't Change The Draft. Once the final
change has been made to a draft, at most two more recirculations can
take place: one to recirculate the change, and one more to recirculate
any disapprove comments made against the change. Infinite delay
cannot occur if the draft remains unchanged. The two recirculations
can be performed in approximately 5 weeks. This is hardly an
infinite or inordinate delay.
Please keep in mind that RevCom reviews on the order of 100 submittals
per year. Less than 10% require further work from the sponsors, and
practically all of them are approved when they are resubmitted. It
can't be all that hard to follow the rules if over 90% of the
projects get it right on their first try, and 99.9% of them get
it right by their second attempt.
As to the lament that the:
> The IEEE already comes under fire for taking so long to get standards
> completed. I have received literally dozens of inquires from 802.11
> members over the last few months about the problem in the rules that
> can allow indefinite delay by a single voter.
I would respond that the IEEE has the most deterministic, predictable,
and efficient process for developing voluntary, consensus based
standards of any SDO on the planet. There are many unfortunate
misconceptions about the process, like the one reflected in the lament
quoted above. The "dozens of inquires" of the kind referenced above
should dealt with by citing the facts, rather than perpetuating the
misconceptions. Indeed, I compare the process to lighting a solid
fuel rocket booster. Once concensus has been achieved and the contents
of a draft are stable, final approval by the Standards Board is assured
within a predictable and brief amount of time.
As to the problem with Gilb's truncated comments, you should be
aware that the report of Mr. Gilb's comments that has been provided
to the RevCom members shows the truncated comments. It is the
responsibility of the submitter to ensure that the correct
documents are submitted to RevCom. If you have an updated
comment summary, you should provide it to the RevCom administrator.
Please include ONLY the unresolved negative comments.
Howard Frazier
Member, IEEE SASB RevCom
Vice-Chairman, IEEE SASB
Matthew B. Shoemake wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Please forward my comments to the SEC reflector.
>
> Howard and SEC members,
>
> More comments below.
>
> On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 06:54 PM, Howard Frazier wrote:
>
>
>
> The IEEE SASB rules do not allow a WG to dismiss a comment
> from a disapproving balloter on the basis that it is purely
> editorial, particularly when the balloter has explicitly
> identified the comment as one of the bases for their disapproval.
> The correct procedure is to write a rebuttal to the comment,
> and recirculate the comment to the balloting group. You can't
> say "In our opinion, the comment is editorial, and thus not
> worthy of recirculation." You can write a rebuttal to that
> effect, and recirculate it, but the balloting group, not the
> WG or the BRC, gets to decide whether the issue is important or
> not. If the balloting group agrees with the disapproving
> balloter, then they get to change their votes to disapprove.
> If they disagree with the disapproving balloter, they can let
> their approval votes stand.
>
>
> On every sponsor recirculation of 802.11g, every comment was
> recirculated to the voting pool. We circulated two sets in each case.
> One set was the set from disapprove voters, and the other was the
> complete set. We did this because the set of comments is so large. There
> has not been a recirculation where all comments where not available for
> review. This includes technical and editorial. If you would like to see
> a list of all of the comments that were circulated, I would be happy to
> provide those, but the SEC and REVCOM seem to prefer to see a truncated
> list for which there is no clear definition in the rules, i.e. I get
> different answers from different committee members on how to form the
> truncated list. I would be happy to provide you the complete list of
> *all* comments that the Sponsor Balloters saw, if you so choose.
>
> If the committee rules are in conflict with the SA rules in this
> regard, then the committee's rules need to be reviewed and revised.
>
> As to the truncated comments, it would appear that there is
> a deficiency in the comment collection process that is being
> used by the committee, since the process allows comments to
> be corrupted between the balloter and the committee. Was any
> attempt made to obtain complete comments from the balloter?
>
>
> There is no deficiency in our process. The error was on the part of the
> voter himself. This is a Microsoft Excel copy and paste problem. I would
> be happy to send you the e-mail where Mr. Gilb acknowledges the error on
> his part. Please let me know if you would like to see it. The committee
> did notify Mr. Gilb that his comments were truncated. We obtained an
> update set from him, and our responses were produced based on the full
> comment. However, the process should not be delayed because a single
> voter made a cut and paste error himself in Microsoft Excel. Task Group
> G has done the best it can to process the comments given the voters error.
>
>
> The answer provided to my question III is not very encouraging.
> >From the answer, it appears that all of the comments associated
> with Disapprove ballots that were not withdrawn were in fact made
> on material that HAD changed in the recirculated draft. If this
> is the case, then the comments require recirculation.
>
>
> With all due respect, if this is our process, our process is broken. If
> all that has to be done to force a recirculation is for a single member
> to put in an editorial comment on a section that has change and vote
> disapprove, then an IEEE draft standard or amendment can be delayed
> indefinitely. This is exactly the situation we are in. We have one voter
> (Gilb) that reiterated his technical comments that were already
> recirculated, and we have one voter (Moreton) that maintained his
> disapprove vote based on previous technical comments but did also put in
> some new editorial comments. These editorial comments should not trigger
> a recirculation. You should also take into consideration that the voter
> that submitted these editorial comments (Moreton) specifically withdrew
> his new technical comments to allow the draft to move forward with out
> additional recirculation. If he had known that his editorial comments
> also would trigger a recirculation, I venture to guess that he may have
> withdrawn his editorial comments also. I would also like to make you
> aware that Mr. Moreton expressed is frustration to me in a private
> conversation that under our rules he could not put in a minority view
> without causing extended delay.
>
> The IEEE already comes under fire for taking so long to get standards
> completed. I have received literally dozens of inquires from 802.11
> members over the last few months about the problem in the rules that can
> allow indefinite delay by a single voter. This is a problem not only for
> 802.11g and 802.11 but for other 802 working groups. I encourage you as
> SEC members to take a pragmatic approach and to vote YES on this motion.
> If you vote NO based on the fact that an editorial comment forces a
> recirculation, then we have a serious problem with our rules.
>
> The decision lies in your hands. Stuart Kerry, John Terry (802.11g vice
> chair) and I would be more than happy to try to address any questions
> that any of you have regarding 802.11g. I am available by e-mail
> (shoemake@ti.com) and by phone (214-226-4179).
>
> Best regards,
> Matthew
>
> Matthew B. Shoemake, Ph.D. (m.b.shoemake@ieee.org)
> Phone: 214-480-2344 Fax: 972-761-5963
> IEEE 802.11 Task Group G Chairperson
> IEEE 802.11 Task Group N Chairperson Elect
>
>
> Howard
>
> Bob O'Hara wrote:
>
> I am forwarding this to the SEC reflector for Matthew Shoemake,
> 802.11
> TGg Chair.
> -Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew B. Shoemake [mailto:shoemake@ti.com] Sent: Friday,
> May 30, 2003 1:03 PM
> To: Bob O'Hara
> Cc: 'Stuart.Kerry@philips.com'; john.terry@nokia.com
> Subject: Re: FW: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize
> Forwarding
> of the 802.11g draft to RevCom
> Bob,
> Thank you for forwarding Howard's comments. My responses are
> below. Please forward to the SEC.
> Regards,
> Matthew
> Howard and other SEC members,
> Please find my comments below.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:millardo@dominetsystems.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 11:57 PM
> To: IEEE802
> Subject: 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.
>
>
> These comments were truncated by Gilb and not by the committee.
> We received them in truncated form.
>
> 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?
>
> The only comments submitted with a disapprove vote came from
> Gilb and Moreton. All of the comments from Moreton were
> editorial, and all of the comments from Gilb where verbatim of
> old comments he had submitted.
>
> II. If comments were submitted with Disapprove ballots
> in the last recirculation, were ALL of them withdrawn by the
> balloter?
>
> Actually Moreton and Gilb each submitted new technical comments,
> but both of them withdrew them so that the process could move
> forward. I would encourage the SEC to take into account the
> intent of Mr. Moreton and Mr. Gilb's in with drawing these
> comments.
>
> 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?
>
> We did have one comment on a section that had not changed, but
> it was withdrawn by the commenter and was therefore not included
> in the comment list.
>
> 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?
>
>
> To the best of our knowledge, this is the case. As a result of
> your comment, we are double checking this just to make sure out
> of the thousands of comments processed, we did not miss one.
> On comment number 2 below, the comment in question is clearly
> editorial. The committee rules clearly state that it is the job
> of the chair to properly classify comments as editorial or
> technical. As a matter of practice, we take as a matter of fact
> the classification provided by the commenter, unless challenged
> by a member. In the case of Gilb8, a member challenged this as
> being technical or editorial. It is my opinion, after analysis,
> that the comment is clearly editorial. This determination was
> made because, if we had accepted the comment, there would have
> been no behavioral change to compliant devices. Task Group G
> also felt that the meaning of the paragraph was clear without
> the editorial change.
> Thanks for your comments, Howard.
> Best regards,
> Matthew B. Shoemake
> IEEE 802.11g Chairperson
>
> 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
> _______________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>