Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++ENDS 12 AUG+++ Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j
Approve.
Roger
>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: <mailto:stuart.kerry@philips.com>stuart.kerry@philips.com
>To: <mailto:p.nikolich@IEEE.ORG>p.nikolich@IEEE.ORG
>Cc:
><mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM>matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM
>; <mailto:sheung@atheros.com>sheung@atheros.com
>;
><mailto:apetrick@icefyre.com>apetrick@icefyre.com
>; <mailto:hworstell@att.com>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:
><mailto:sheung@atheros.com>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>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: <mailto:sheung@atheros.com>Sheung Li
>>To: <mailto:bob.grow@intel.com>Grow, Bob
>>Cc:
>><mailto:stuart.kerry@philips.com>stuart.kerry@philips.com
>>;
>><mailto:carl.stevenson@ieee.org>carl.stevenson@ieee.org
>>;
>><mailto:p.nikolich@ieee.org>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:
>>><mailto:stuart.kerry@philips.com>stuart.kerry@philips.com
>>>[<mailto:stuart.kerry@philips.com>mailto:stuart.kerry@philips.com]
>>>Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 6:15 PM
>>>To: Grow, Bob
>>>Cc:
>>><mailto:carl.stevenson@ieee.org>carl.stevenson@ieee.org;
>>><mailto:p.nikolich@ieee.org>p.nikolich@ieee.org;
>>><mailto:sheung@atheros.com>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: <mailto:stuart.kerry@philips.com>stuart.kerry@philips.com
>>>_______________________________
>>>
>---------- This email is sent from the 802
>Executive Committee email reflector. This list
>is maintained by Listserv.
>
>Attachment converted: Little
>Al:11-04-0854-03-0000-S#10FCD3.ppt (SLD3/PPT3)
>(0010FCD3)
>Attachment converted: Little
>Al:11-04-0703-03-000j-p#10FCD4.xls (XLS4/«IC»)
>(0010FCD4)
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.