Re: +++802SEC Ballot: Forward 802.16.2 to Sponsor Ballot
Roger,
Could you please summarize the 4 negative ballots and what was done to
change them to approve? (I looked through the detailed comments, but I
gave up trying to extract the above information.)
Thanks,
--Paul
At 07:48 AM 2/20/01 -0600, Jim Carlo wrote:
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>SEC OFFICIAL EMAIL BALLOT 802.0/19Feb2001
>Issue Date: 19Feb2001 Closing Date: 29Feb2001
>Moved By: Roger Marks
>MOTION: To forward IEEE Draft 802.16.2/D2-2001 ("Recommended Practice
>for Coexistence of Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems") for
>Sponsor Ballot.
>
>Notes: From Roger Marks
>Here is an explanation:
>
>(1) The Working Group Letter Ballot results are clean. 802.16's
>Letter Ballot #2, ("To approve Document IEEE 802.16.2/D1-2000 and
>forward it for Sponsor Ballot") ran from 11-17 to 12-27-2000. The
>results were:
>
>Approve: 69 Disapprove: 4 Approval Ratio: 94.5% [75% required]
>Abstain: 10 Members: 134 Return Ratio: 61.9% [50% required]
>Comments: 147
>
>Following the 10-day Recirculation Ballot #2a of the resolutions
>developed by the editorial committee, the vote status was:
>
>Approve: 70 Disapprove: 3 Approval Ratio: 95.9% [75% required]
>Abstain: 10 Members: 134 Return Ratio: 61.9% [50% required]
>Comments: 23
>
>Following comment resolution at 802.16's January interim, all three
>of the negatives voters agreed to vote Approve. Therefore, there were
>no negative comments to include in the following 10-day Recirculation
>Ballot #2b. The recirc referred only to the set of comment
>resolutions, an updated draft (802.16.2/D2-2001), and a marked-up
>draft showing the changes between D2 and D1. Recirc #2b stated the
>motion as follows: "To approve the proposed resolutions (as
>represented in Document IEEE 802.16-01/06) of comments received in
>802.16 Recirculation Ballot #2a, and to forward, for Sponsor Ballot,
>the resulting Draft Standard (IEEE 802.16.2/D2-2001". Only three
>votes were received in this final recirc; these were votes of
>"Approve without comments" received from the three voters who were
>negative following Recirc #2a. Therefore, ballot is declared closed
>and final. The final vote tally is:
>
>Approve: 73 Disapprove: 0 Approval Ratio: 100% [75% required]
>Abstain: 10 Members: 134 Return Ratio: 61.9% [50% required]
>
>In summary, the document we want to send for Sponsor Ballot is
>identical to the one that completed Recirc #2a with 100% approval and
>no new comments.
>
>At our January interim, following a presentation of the comment
>resolution results, 802.16 unanimously passed a motion "To initiate
>Sponsor Ballot of IEEE 802.16.2/D1-2000, subject to successful
>completion of final recirculation ballot."
>
>For a full, documented report of the Letter Ballot, see
><http://ieee802.org/16/tg2/ballots/ballot02>.
>
>
>(2) We are asking for an email vote because it is essential to our
>schedule. We believe that approval will give us a realistic chance of
>making the June RevCom agenda. Here is the schedule to get us there:
>
> http://ieee802.org/16/tg2/schedule.html
>
>Note that our invitation to participate in the Sponsor Ballot Group
>(IEEE-SA's first-ever electronic one) expires tonight. While the SEC
>approval vote takes place, we will have time to put a Ballot Group
>together.
>
>
>I'd like to acknowledge the great efforts of our Task Group 2,
>particularly the Chair, Phil Whitehead, and the Editor, Muya Wachira.
>I'd also like to thank Howard Frazier, who helped me through the
>process by explaining the subtle unwritten rules of balloting, and
>Geoff Thompson, who advised me on the creation of an electronic
>balloting tool.
>
>Notice that our schedule indicates SEC approval of this motion by
>March 1. I hope the SEC will be able to meet this deadline.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Roger
>