RE: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of the 802.11g draft to RevCom
Hi Everyone,
For the moment, I am changing my vote to abstain. I am still probing
deeper into this issue before making a decision.
Mat
Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:54 AM
To: Geoff Thompson
Cc: Matthew B. Shoemake; p.nikolich@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of
the 802.11g draft to RevCom
I am also changing my vote to DISAPPROVE.
Given the correspondence on this subject, both for and against, it is no
longer clear to me whether or not proper procedure has been followed
here.
Regards,
Tony
At 07:29 05/06/2003 -0700, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>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
>> >>> _______________________________
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>
Regards,
Tony