Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of the 802.11g draft to RevCom
Paul-
Given the problems here that I have seen, I am going to vote DISAPPROVE.
Matt/Stuart-
As a member of the SEC, one of the reasons for my NO vote above is that I
don't want one person (the editor) writing the response to any DISAPPROVE
vote, without regard to the classification of the content.
You do not want a system/rules that can fall to attack under appeal. It is
my judgement that having a process disposes of a DISAPPROVE comment
(presumably in a manner that is not to the satisfaction of the voter) by
one person would crumple under scrutiny.
I would add my support to Bob Grow's frustration with your web site. In
addition to all of the frustrations that Bob ran into I would add that the
site is somewhat incompatible with my default browser, Netscape. So by the
time I have switched browsers I have already dispensed with any notion of
its user friendliness. From here on in, my frustration grows with the
site's orientation to self-promotion and marketing as opposed to making
standards project and process information available in a straight-forward
complete and clear manner. My own desires may be a little to dry for your
tastes but I believe that my wants are legitimate and some redesign is in
order.
Geoff
At 03:35 PM 6/1/2003 -0700, Bob O'Hara wrote:
>Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 22:26:02 -0500
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of
>the 802.11g draft to RevCom
>Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org, "Bob O'Hara" <bob@airespace.com>,
> "'Stuart.Kerry@philips.com'" <Stuart.Kerry@philips.com>,
> john.terry@nokia.com
>To: "Grow, Bob" <bob.grow@intel.com>
>From: "Matthew B. Shoemake" <shoemake@ti.com>
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I was referring to the IEEE 802.11 Working Group rules.
>
>No members have been disenfranchised in the 802.11g balloting process.
>
>All comments whether technical or editorial, reclassified or not, were
>addressed and approved by the IEEE 802.11 Task Group G and recirculated
>during Sponsor Balloting. By reclassifying a comment as editorial, we
>simply mean that we let the 802.11g editor drafted the proposed
>resolution to the comment. The Task Group then approved the proposed
>resolution to the comment from the editor. We did not throw any
>comments away.
>
>Best regards,
>Matthew
>
>On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 08:18 PM, Grow, Bob wrote:
>
> > Matthew:
> >
> > I would appreciate a specific citation supporting: "The committee
> > rules clearly state that it is the job of the
> > chair to properly classify comments as editorial or technical." (I am
>
> > well aware of the authority granted to decide what is technical and
> > what is procedural but that doesn't include reclassification of ballot
>
> > comments!)
> >
> > While the 802.11 rules don't apply to a Sponsor Ballot, I find nothing
>
> > to support such a position from a keyword search (e.g., Chair,
> > editorial, comment), nor know of anything in LMSC or SA rules that
> > grant such authority. Even the 802.11 ballot flow chart (Figure
> > 9.1.5.1) properly indicates that only the commenter decides which
> > comments are the basis for his/her negative ballot, and if he/she is
> > satisfied with the resolution of their comments. My mentoring by
> > Standards Board members specifically contradicts your assertion and is
>
> > consistent with Howard's warning that this is something that will
> > cause RevCom to bounce a project.
> >
> > Allowing a BRC, or even worse a Chair, to reclassify comments
> > disfranchises voters and I believe is a significant violation of SA
> > procedure.
> >
> > --Bob Grow
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob O'Hara [mailto:bob@airespace.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 1:21 PM
> > To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> > Cc: shoemake@ti.com
> > Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of
> > the 802.11g draft to RevCom
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >>> _______________________________
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >