RE: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of the 802.11g draft to RevCom
I don't know if the SA or LMSC rules allow speak to the extension of a
ballot, except to meet the minimum return requirements. I don't have an
opinion on this matter and don't have RROR at hand.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:46 PM
To: Matthew Sherman; tony@jeffree.co.uk; gthompso@nortelnetworks.com
Cc: shoemake@ti.com; p.nikolich@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of
the 802.11g draft to RevCom
Mat,
Given the late information update, it seems to be reasonable to extend
the
ballot duration--but I don't know what the rules are for this case.
Is the chair allowed to extend the ballot duration or not? I will ask
Bob
O'Hara for input. I will look into SA rules and RROO as well.
--Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: <mjsherman@research.att.com>
To: <mjsherman@research.att.com>; <tony@jeffree.co.uk>;
<gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
Cc: <shoemake@ti.com>; <p.nikolich@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 5:37 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of
the
802.11g draft to RevCom
>
> Paul,
>
> I have been vigorously investigating the issues concerning this
motion.
> To verify the claims at hand, it is necessary to dig very deeply into
> the sponsor ballot material. I cannot accomplish the task within the
> current period allotted to ballot this motion.
>
> I therefore request that the ballot period on this motion be extended
by
> one day to allow processing of the vast amount of information being
> brought forward!
>
> Please let me know if this is possible.
>
> 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: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 11:16 AM
> To: 'Tony Jeffree'; 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
>
> 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
>
>