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

RE: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of the 802.11g draft to RevCom




Dear SEC,

With all due respect to Dr. Gilb (who I like and respect
considerably),  I believe that, based on the responses
from the Chair of TGg, the process has been followed in
scrupulous detail.

I would also note, again with all due respect to Dr.
Gilb, that he was one of the last "hold-outs" on the
802.15.1 standard.  I respect his zealous defense of
his views, but when they are in the extreme minority,
I do not belive that they should for a basis for holding
up progress on the issuance of a standard that has
overwhelming consensus support.

Regards,
Carl R. Stevenson
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
610-965-8799 (home office)
610-712-3217 (fax mailbox)
610-570-6168 (cellphone)
Short Message Service: 6105706168@voicestream.net
carl.stevenson@ieee.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob O'Hara [mailto:bob@airespace.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 6:35 PM
> To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of
> the 802.11g draft to RevCom
> 
> 
> 
> ate: Fri, 30 May 2003 22:14:38 -0500
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of
> the 802.11g draft to RevCom
> Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org,
>    "'Stuart.Kerry@philips.com'" <Stuart.Kerry@philips.com>,
>    john.terry@nokia.com
> To: Howard Frazier <millardo@dominetsystems.com>,
>    "Bob O'Hara" <bob@airespace.com>
> From: "Matthew B. Shoemake" <shoemake@ti.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> >>>> _______________________________
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --Apple-Mail-5-881750776
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Type: text/enriched;
> 	charset=US-ASCII
> 
> 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:
> 
> 
> <excerpt>
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> </excerpt>
> 
> On <underline>every</underline> sponsor recirculation of 802.11g,
> <underline>every</underline> 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.
> 
> 
> <excerpt>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?
> 
> </excerpt>
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> <excerpt>
> 
> 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.
> 
> </excerpt>
> 
> <underline>With all due respect,</underline> 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
> 
> 
> <excerpt>
> 
> Howard
> 
> 
> Bob O'Hara wrote:
> 
> 
> <excerpt>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.
> 
> <excerpt>-----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.
> 
> 
> 
> </excerpt>These comments were truncated by Gilb and not by the
> committee.   We received them in truncated form.
> 
> <excerpt>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?
> 
> 
> </excerpt>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.
> 
> <excerpt>II. If comments were submitted with Disapprove ballots
> 
> in the last recirculation, were ALL of them withdrawn by the
> 
> balloter?
> 
> 
> </excerpt>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.
> 
> <excerpt>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?
> 
> 
> </excerpt>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.
> 
> <excerpt>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?
> 
> 
> 
> </excerpt>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
> 
> <excerpt>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:
> 
> 
> 
> <excerpt>Vote = NO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are substantive procedural lapses in the ballot process which
> 
> 
> </excerpt>form
> 
> 
> <excerpt>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
> 
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>balloted
> 
> <excerpt><excerpt>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
> 
> 
> </excerpt>to
> 
> 
> <excerpt>replicate my descriptions.)  From the pull down menu Group
> Updates /
> 
> Task Groups / G, it appears that the initial sponsor ballot was on
> 
> 
> </excerpt>D6.2,
> 
> 
> <excerpt>the first recirculation ballot on D7.1, and the second
> recirculation
> 
> ballot on D8.1, yet the ballot results (Group Updates / Ballot
> 
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>Results
> 
> <excerpt>/
> 
> 
> <excerpt>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
> 
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>with
> 
> <excerpt><excerpt>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
> 
> 
> </excerpt>days
> 
> 
> <excerpt>(14.xxx days) in violation of LMSC sponsor ballot periods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  After reviewing the comment database provided with the motion, I
> 
> 
> </excerpt>am
> 
> 
> <excerpt>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
> 
> 
> </excerpt>Gilb23
> 
> 
> <excerpt>reference).
> 
> 
> b.  Resubmitted on the second sponsor recirculation ballot (D8.2) as
> 
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>a
> 
> <excerpt><excerpt>technical comment.
> 
> 
> c.  That the BRC on the second sponsor recirculation ballot
> 
> 
> </excerpt>reclassified
> 
> 
> <excerpt>the comment as editorial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I find the willingness of the committee to perpetuate ambiguity
> 
> 
> </excerpt>in
> 
> 
> <excerpt>the specification with the continued use of both underscore
> and
> 
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>hyphen
> 
> <excerpt><excerpt>in primitive names disappointing, it is the
> procedural aspects that
> 
> 
> </excerpt>are
> 
> 
> <excerpt>the purview of the SEC.  It is appropriate in the comment
> response
> 
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>for
> 
> <excerpt><excerpt>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
> 
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>negative
> 
> <excerpt><excerpt>vote as being an editorial issue and therefore
> non-binding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  I couldn't find answers to some questions related to this
> 
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>comment:
> 
> <excerpt><excerpt>
> 
> 
> a.  Why is there no Gilb 23 in the D6.2 comment database?  (The
> 
> 
> </excerpt>comment
> 
> 
> <excerpt>database in the motion package indicates it was a "first
> sponsor
> 
> 
> </excerpt>ballot"
> 
> 
> <excerpt>comment.)  I can't evaluate if the comment was the same as
> Gilb23 if
> 
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>I
> 
> <excerpt><excerpt>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
> 
> 
> </excerpt>find
> 
> 
> <excerpt>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
> 
> 
> </excerpt>but
> 
> 
> <excerpt>a different remedy is implemented than that 
> recommended by the
> 
> commenter.  (This might be transferable to the frustration section
> 
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>but
> 
> <excerpt><excerpt>it is impossible to determine on which ballot these
> comments were
> 
> 
> </excerpt>entered.)
> 
> 
> <excerpt>
> 
> 
> --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
> 
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>the
> 
> <excerpt><excerpt>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
> 
> 
> </excerpt>to
> 
> 
> <excerpt>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
> 
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>session
> 
> <excerpt><excerpt>(May 2003):
> 
> 
> Move to Forward IEEE 802.11g Draft 8.2 to the IEEE 802 SEC and to
> 
> 
> </excerpt>RevCom
> 
> 
> <excerpt>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
> 
> 
> </excerpt>IEEE
> 
> 
> <excerpt>802.11g.  We have not been able to contact him sense. 
> E-mails were
> 
> 
> </excerpt>sent
> 
> 
> <excerpt>on both recirculation ballots requesting his response.  At
> the April
> 
> 2003 session of 802.11g, multiple attempts were made to contact Tim
> 
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>to
> 
> <excerpt><excerpt>no avail.  On the first recirculation ballot, Tim
> provided five
> 
> comments.  One comments was editorial, and it was accepted.  The
> 
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>other
> 
> <excerpt><excerpt>four comments were technical.  Tim had two comments
> related to
> 
> 
> </excerpt>removing
> 
> 
> <excerpt>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
> 
> 
> </excerpt>comments
> 
> 
> <excerpt>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
> 
> 
> </excerpt>technical
> 
> 
> <excerpt>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
> 
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>vote
> 
> <excerpt><excerpt>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
> 
> 
> </excerpt>posted
> 
> 
> <excerpt>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
> 
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>was
> 
> <excerpt><excerpt>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
> 
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>the
> 
> <excerpt><excerpt>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
> 
> _______________________________
> 
> 
> 
> </excerpt>
> 
> </excerpt></excerpt>
> 
> 
> 
> </excerpt>
> 
> 
> --Apple-Mail-5-881750776--
> 
>