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

RE: [802SEC] Report on 15.2 Recirculation Ballot



Bob:
 
I'm not very comfortable with going to RevCom when the WG hasn't had the opportunity to review the SB results.  (While they had the opportunity to view all comments before the ballot closed, it isn't really the same thing.)  Some questions:
 
1.  Were any comments (editorial or technical) received on the latest recirculation ballot?
2.  Did the WG approve June RevCom submission (per 802.15 rules 7.7)?
 
--Bob Grow
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Heile [mailto:bheile@ieee.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 3:11 PM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Cc: shell@symbol.com; david.cypher@nist.gov
Subject: [802SEC] Report on 15.2 Recirculation Ballot

The 15.2 Recirculation ballot closed on April 15. The results were:

1. This ballot has met the 75% returned ballot requirement.
66 eligible people in this ballot group.
48 affirmative votes
1 negative votes with comments
0 negative votes without comments
7 abstention votes
=====
56 votes received = 84% returned
12% abstention
2. The 75% affirmation requirement is being met.
48 affirmative votes
1 negative votes with comments
=====
49 votes = 97% affirmative

We received one new affirmative and one of the no voters changed their vote to affirmative.  The one remaining no vote was from the previous ballot and was ruled then as not a valid technical comment and made part of the recirculation. (copy below) There has been no response from that voter.

Given that there are no new no votes and no changes required to the draft,  I will be making a motion to the SEC, via a 10 day letter ballot,  to forward Draft 9 to RevCom in time for the May 2 submission deadline.


Comment received on Draft 8 and recirculated with Draft 9:

CommenterName CommentType CommentID Clause Subclause Page Line
O'Farrell, Timothy      T               8               D       89
Comment
The source code of Appendix D is provided without a flow diagram schematic. To enhance understanding and accessibility of the program material a flow diagram schematic is required.
SuggestedRemedy
Include a flow diagram schematic of the source code presented in Appendix D.
Response
REJECT.
The BRC does not know of any requirements to supply a flow diagram for code, therefore one will not be created and included. BRC does not consider this a technical comment on the draft, since it relates to a informative annex.




Bob Heile, Ph.D
Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
Chair, ZigBee Alliance
11 Louis Road
Attleboro, MA  02703   USA
Phone: 508-222-1393
Mobile: 781-929-4832
Fax:        508-222-0515
email:   bheile@ieee.org