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--
>
>