Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++ENDS 5 JUNE+++ conditional approval: IEEE P802.16-2004/Cor1 to Sponsor Ballot
Roger:
Thanks for the timely response, and pertinent supplemental information.
You now have my approve vote.
I understand that this is a working group ballot. My comment about the
responses being sufficient for a RevCom review was simply a suggestion
that the Task Group might consider making their responses a bit less
terse during Sponsor Ballot. Else, a similar question as mine might be
received from a member of RevCom. My reason for pointing out the
specific comments was precisely the point that was raised by Geoff,
participants are individuals and there is no provision for
"representatives". Your provided information answers this concern.
Basically, WG ballot can be an excellent training opportunity, so that a
project's Sponsor ballot process will be beyond question.
--Bob Grow
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 7:57 AM
To: Grow, Bob
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org; jlabs@wavesat.com; tal.kaitz@alvarion.com;
ran.yaniv@alvarion.com
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++ENDS 5 JUNE+++ conditional
approval: IEEE P802.16-2004/Cor1 to Sponsor Ballot
Bob,
Thanks for your close scrutiny and the chance to clarify the resolutions
of Comments 105 and 106. I have reviewed the case with our excellent
Task Group Chair, Jon Labs, and with the authors of the two comments
(all of whom are receiving this note). Details will follow, but first
come the key points:
*Your Person C and your Person A are one and the same person. With this
additional information, I think that the resolutions as written are
complete. Moreover...
*Mr. Kaitz accepts the resolution of his Comment 105 and, in fact, has
now voted Approve in the ongoing recirc, bringing the approval ratio to
97% <http://ieee802.org//16/maint/ballot17/report17.html>.
*Mr. Yaniv accepts the resolution of his Comment 106 (as well as his
comments 141, 147, 198, and 231 from
report 05/015r3, and 174 from report 05/021r3).
*I have posted an updated (smaller) record of the remaining Technical
Disapprove comments:
<http://ieee802.org//16/docs/05/80216-05_033r1.pdf>
If you have any other specific concerns, please let me know.
*You wondered if the responses "will be sufficient for RevCom." However,
these resolutions are not intended for RevCom. We are simply trying to
close out the WG ballot and move to Sponsor Ballot.
*I have corrected the header of this email to show the true ballot
deadline of June 5.
Please see below for the full tale of Comments 105 and 106.
Regards,
Roger
Comments 105 and 106 are identical in all 118 words, except for a
grammatical correction in one word.
While Comment 105 offers a Suggested Remedy, 106 has none. Therefore,
the Task Group felt it was sufficient to respond directly only to Mr.
Kaitz's 105, marking Mr. Yaniv's 106 as "Superceded" by 105.
Mr. Kaitz did not attend the 802.16 WG's Session #37, at which the TG
took up consideration of 105. However, Mr. Yaniv did attend and offered
to represent Mr. Kaitz's Suggested Remedy in 105. Given the similarity
of viewpoint on the issue, the TG felt that this request was
appropriate.
In the course of discussion, it became evident that many attendees were
interested in this comment, and a decision was deferred until late in
the week, as indicated in the Group Notes field. When the comment was
reconsidered, Mr. Yaniv himself asked that it be rejected on the grounds
that the remedy lacked sufficient consensus within the group. Without
objection, the comment was then rejected.
During recirc, Mr. Kaitz and Mr. Yaniv have both indicated their
satisfaction with the resolutions of Comments 105 and 106.
=================================
At 14:40 -0700 2005-05-26, Grow, Bob wrote:
>Roger:
>
>I'm troubled some by the responses that have very light justification
>for rejection and wonder if they will be sufficient for RevCom. One
>comment though has me very confused. Comment #106 is "Superceded, See
>comment #105", but #105 is "Rejected, The author's representative
>requested the comment to be rejected due to lack of harmonization".
>That is too many levels of indirection for me to feel comfortable. How
>is a comment from person A superceded by a comment from B (I did notice
>the similarity of suggested remedy) and consequently effectively is
>rejected by request of person C?
>
>Could you explain this better? Perhaps "lack of harmonization" is too
>cryptic for me to find a significant reason for rejection.
>
>--Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Roger B.
>Marks
>Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:46 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++ENDS 5 MAY+++ conditional
>approval: IEEE P802.16-2004/Cor1 to Sponsor Ballot
>
>Dear EC Members,
>
>This is a email ballot to make a determination on the motion:
>
>"To grant conditional approval to forward, for Sponsor Ballot, IEEE
>P802.16-2004/Cor1, a draft corrigendum to IEEE Std 802.16-2004."
>
>Moved: Roger Marks
>Second: Bob O'Hara
>
>The ballot opens 25 May 2005 and closes
>5 June 2005 at 11:59 pm ET.
>
>Paul has asked me to conduct this ballot. Please reply to
>stds-802-sec@ieee.org.
>
>Regards,
>
>Roger
>==========================================
>
>Paul,
>
>I would like to make a motion for an electronic EC ballot to grant
>conditional approval to forward, for Sponsor Ballot, IEEE
>P802.16-2004/Cor1, a draft corrigendum to IEEE Std 802.16-2004. The
>conditional approval is requested under Clause 21 of the IEEE 802 P&P.
>
>Bob O'Hara has agreed to second the motion.
>
>The ballot schedule follows:
> WG Letter Ballot #17: 11 Feb - 13 Mar 2005
> WG Recirc Ballot #17a: 5 Apr - 22 Apr 2005
> WG Recirc Ballot #17b: 23 May - 7 Jun 2005
>
>The recirc ballot announcement:
> <http://ieee802.org//16/docs/05/80216-05_032.pdf>
>includes the statement: "This ballot is being conducted under the
>procedure for conditional approval of the LMSC Policies and Procedures
>[IEEE PROJECT 802 LAN MAN STANDARDS COMMITTEE (LMSC) POLICIES AND
>PROCEDURES <http://ieee802.org/policies-and-procedures.pdf>."
>
>The current ballot status is:
> 167 Approve
> 7 Disapprove
> 5 Abstain
> 96% Approval Ratio (167/174)
> 81% Return Ratio (179/220)
>Details are at <http://ieee802.org//16/maint/ballot17/report17.html>.
>
>The remaining Technical Disapprove comments, and responses, are here:
> <http://ieee802.org//16/docs/05/80216-05_033.pdf>
>The comments labeled "IEEE 802.16-05/015r3" in the upper right corner
>were submitted in the initial ballot and then recirculated. Those
>labeled "IEEE 802.16-05/021r3" were submitted during the first recirc
>and are currently being recirculated.
>
>A relevant WG Motion of 5 May 2005 was approved by vote of 64-0 at the
>802.16 WG interim: "To accept draft P802.16-2004/Cor1/D2 as modified by
>the comment resolutions (IEEE 802.16-05/021r2) and open a Working Group
>Confirmation Letter Ballot on that Draft (P802.16-2004/Cor1/D3), and to
>request conditional approval to the 802 EC to forward the draft to
>Sponsor Ballot."
>
>I am requesting conditional approval now so that Sponsor Ballot can be
>concluded before the July Plenary.
>
>Regards,
>
>Roger
>
>--
>
>Dr. Roger B. Marks <mailto:marks@nist.gov> +1 303 497 7837
>National Institute of Standards and Technology/Boulder, CO, USA
>Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access
> <http://WirelessMAN.org>
>
>----------
>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.