Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++ENDS 12 AUG+++ Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j



Approve.

-ajay

On 8/2/2004 3:20 PM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
> Dear EC members,
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
> --Paul Nikolich
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: stuart.kerry@philips.com <mailto:stuart.kerry@philips.com>
> To: p.nikolich@IEEE.ORG <mailto:p.nikolich@IEEE.ORG>
> Cc: matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM
> <mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM> ; sheung@atheros.com
> <mailto:sheung@atheros.com> ; apetrick@icefyre.com
> <mailto:apetrick@icefyre.com> ; hworstell@att.com
> <mailto:hworstell@att.com>
> 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>
> [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
>>
>>     Bob,
>>
>>     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.
>>
>>     Regards,
>>
>>     --Paul
>>
>>     ----- Original Message -----
>>     From: Sheung Li <mailto:sheung@atheros.com>
>>     To: Grow, Bob <mailto:bob.grow@intel.com>
>>     Cc: stuart.kerry@philips.com <mailto:stuart.kerry@philips.com> ;
>>     carl.stevenson@ieee.org <mailto:carl.stevenson@ieee.org> ;
>>     p.nikolich@ieee.org <mailto:p.nikolich@ieee.org>
>>     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
>>>
>>>
>>>         Bob ,
>>>
>>>         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
>>>
>>>         _______________________________
>>>
>>>         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.