Paul,
I approve.
Steve
-----Original
Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004
12:21 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] +++EC Email
Ballot+++ENDS 12 AUG+++ Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package
regarding 802.11j
As per the decision
at the July closing EC meeting Stuart Kerry has made the below motion to
forward 802.11j to RevCom under the conditional approval process. See the
motion below.
The ballot
duration will be 10 days. It opens 4pm edt 2 August and closes 4pm edt 12
August.
----- Original
Message -----
Sent: Monday,
August 02, 2004 2:37 PM
Subject: Proposed
2nd 802 ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j
Paul,
May I formally request
that the Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding the
motion regarding 802.11j for conditional approval is started today as a 10 Day
EC Ballot.
Moved by: Kerry
Seconded by: Sherman
Having it as a 10 Day
would mean that it opened today and closed August 12, 2004 to enable it to be
approved and loaded onto the RevCom agenda by their agenda closing date of
August 13.
/ Stuart
From: sheung@atheros.com
[mailto:sheung@atheros.com]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004
10:37
To: Grow, Bob
Cc: Stuart Kerry
Subject: Re: FW: Proposed 2nd 802
ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j
Thank you very much for
your second review. Attached is the updated package.
==S
Grow, Bob wrote:
FYI
From: Grow, Bob
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004
10:28 AM
To: 'Paul Nikolich'
Subject: RE: Proposed 2nd 802
ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j
Paul:
It looks fine to me, my
only suggestion was to add a "(formerly Procedure 10)" to the title
slide for those of us that might not remember we approved new rules a couple
week ago. I believe they will need a 10 day EC ballot.
--Bob
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004
12:25 PM
To: Grow, Bob
Subject: Fw: Proposed 2nd 802
ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j
Did you review and
comment on the attached information? I can't remember or find a response
from you. I will not initiate an EC email ballot until I get the OK from
you.
----- Original
Message -----
Sent: Thursday,
July 29, 2004 10:21 PM
Subject: Re:
Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j
Thank you very much for
reviewing these materials so quickly. Respectfully noting the scope of
your feedback, I have since consulted Stuart along with David, Andy, and Yvette
at IEEE staff and the 802.1 conditional approval materials from the July ExCom
meeting.
The presentation is now focused and consistent with the others. Please
let us know if it addresses your concerns.
Addressing each of your points.
1. Required information
a. The exact recirculation ballot dates are included
b. D1.5 unaccepted disapprove comments only (per LMSC P&P Jul
04 pg 40, para. 3) are attached.
2. Unnecessary information
a. Supporting material has been moved to the back
b. Only current status reported. Conditional responses
removed
c. Checklist and all speculation removed
d. Revert to use of PAR title. The changes in
the usage of "LAN," "IEEE," and Amendment Number in the
title were all made to conform to the current SA publication standard (as used
in 802.11i, 2003 corrigendum, etc.) Per RevCom requirements, the exact
PAR title except for the mispelled "Telecommunications" is now used.
IEEE production staff will make necessary conformance changes.
3. Prejudicial comments
Speculation on future changes removed
==S
Grow, Bob wrote:
Stuart/Sheung:
1. You haven't
provided the required information.
a. There is no schedule for the recirculation ballot. All the
package says is the recirculation must complete one week before
RevCom meets. How about some actual dates that give us confidence that
the LMSC 15 day recirculation period has been remembered, and that the ballot
will have been opened by the RevCom submittal deadline as their conventions
require.
b. It looks like you have provided a complete comment report, nice to
point at but not what is requested. It isn't my job to filter through the
comments to see which ones are linked to negative ballots. I expect a
separate unresolved negative comment report.
2. There is
confusing and unnecessary info to distract EC members. Actually the only
critical information in the Procedure 10 presentation is slide 9.
a. I find inclusion of the WG/LB ballot stuff in the procedure 10
presentation confusing. The only thing that matters for RevCom submission
is the Sponsor Ballot process/results as required in the procedure 10 bullets.
Move LB info to supplementary material rather than leading with it.
b. Slide 9 -- I don't need to be confused by "conditionally
change their vote to yes". They are either yes or no at this
moment. If you don't have an email flipping the vote (no conditions),
don't promise a higher approval percentage. If you have the email or some
other kind of sign-off for a ballot flip, be prepared to produce it if
asked.. You will be able to report conditional flips (e.g., I want
to look at it in the draft during recirculation, but I should be satisfied) to
us when you report the results of the D1.6 ballot.
c. The items in the Procedure 10 numbered list are something you report
to us after the D1.6 recirculation to justify leaving the submittal on the
RevCom agenda. Yes you need your own check list now for project
management, but the EC should be focused on the facts, not speculations about
what will happen with D1.6.
d. The draft is nice but not required for Procedure 10 EC review.
Having it though and seeing that there were changes to the title, I compared it
to the PAR. Now you get to explain on the RevCom submission why the
document title balloted and the PAR do not agree (e.g., why did you delete
"LAN", the "Amendment" thing is obviously for adaptation to
current publication style).
3. Slide 10, item 4
comment is prejudicial. The number of comments in the comment report is
sufficient justification that comment resolution has been largely
completed. To indicate a prejudice to not make any changes in response to D1.6
1st SB recirculation comments that you haven't seen isn't good.
--Bob
From: stuart.kerry@philips.com [mailto:stuart.kerry@philips.com]
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 6:15
PM
To: Grow, Bob
Cc: carl.stevenson@ieee.org; p.nikolich@ieee.org; sheung@atheros.com
Subject: Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom
Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j
Per the
instructions given to 802.11 at the Portland ExCom Closing Plenary meeting I am
enclosing the information regarding agenda item
5.12 - 802.11j for consideration for approval, to forward
to RevCom under procedure 10 of the LMSC P&P (now paragraph 21 -
revised July 16, 2004).
I know that I may
be asking a lot of you but, please could you kindly review the complete package
before I send this to Paul for the ExCom motion, which I will of course
incorporate any valuable suggestions of yours before sending to him. I would
like to send the pack by Thursday this week, so an early consideration would be
very much appreciated.
Attached is the
complete package of P802.11j documentation sent to me by the Task Group (Sheung
Li) which I have reviewed and amended accordingly, including;
1) Procedure 10 Presentation,
including vote tallies for 802.11 ExCom members.
2) P802.11j D1.6 clean draft,
expecting no further technical changes.
3) P802.11j D1.6
redlined draft.
4) Sponsor Ballot comment resolution
document, indicating resolutions.
I believe that item 1) above is the
executive summary that the ExCom members are looking for.
Carl Stevenson has
agreed to second the ExCom motion, particularly in the light of
Paul's stance regarding the News/Closing reports, should be cleared by tonight
with regards to 802.11.
Thanks for your
help in advance,
_______________________________
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) 474-5343
Cell: +1 (408) 348-3171
email: stuart.kerry@philips.com
_______________________________
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.