Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] +++EC Ballot+++IEEE802.20.2 Draft 1.0 forwarding to sponsor ballot - CLOSES MAY 9th 2009
I approve
john
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Klerer, Mark
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 8:54 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [802SEC] +++EC Ballot+++IEEE802.20.2 Draft 1.0 forwarding to
> sponsor ballot - CLOSES MAY 9th 2009
> Importance: High
>
> Dear EC Members,
>
>
>
> This is an update on the current vote count on the above ballot. If you
> have not yet voted I would appreciate your doing that at this time. If
> you have any questions feel free to contact me.
>
>
>
> The current vote count is as follows:
>
> Vote categories: APP DIS ABS DNV
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> VC Mat Sherman. DNV
>
> VC Pat Thaler. DNV
>
> ES Buzz Rigsbee. DNV
>
> RS James Gilb. DNV
>
> TR John Hawkins. DNV
>
> 01 Tony Jeffree. DNV
>
> 03 David Law. DNV
>
> 11 Bruce Kraemer. DNV
>
> 15 Bob Heile. DNV
>
> 16 Roger Marks. APP
>
> 17 John Lemon. DNV
>
> 18 Mike Lynch. DNV
>
> 19 Steve Shellhammer. DNV
>
> 20 Mark Klerer. APP
>
> 21 Vivek Gupta. DNV
>
> 22 Carl Stevenson. APP
>
> ME Geoff Thompson. non-voting
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> TOTALS 3
> 0 0 13
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mark Klerer
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear EC members
>
> As a follow-up to my previous e-mail (attached) concerning the approval
> to advance 802.20.2 to sponsor ballot, Paul has authorized me to
> initiate a 10-day ballot for the following motion:
>
> "The EC approves forwarding Draft 1.0 of IEEE802.20.2 to Sponsor
> Ballot."
>
> Moved: Mark Klerer
>
> Seconded: Steve Shellhammer
>
> Start of ballot: 29 April, 2009
>
> End of ballot: 9 May or 24 hours after the last EC member votes.
>
> By way of background and recapitulation of the previous e-mail, on the
> WG Letter Ballot of 802.20.2 there was 1 no voter with 2 editorial
> comments and 1 technical comment. The two editorial comments, were
> accepted in principal (i.e. accommodated) and the technical comment was
> rejected. Details can be found in the attached spreadsheet. None of
> the resolutions to these comments required any changes to the draft and
> none were made. The resolution to the comments that were accommodated,
> were done to the satisfaction of the commenter who was present during
> the discussions. Given that no changes were made to the draft, the
> comment resolutions were all recirculated in a 15 day WG Letter Ballot
> for approval and for forwarding the draft to Sponsor Ballot. The result
> of the recirculation was 16-1-0. The one remaining no vote was by the
> original commenter on the basis of the original technical comment.
> Best regards,
>
> Mark Klerer
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> 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.