RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Ballot: Forward IEEE 802.15.1 to Sponsor Bal lot
Likewise, I disapprove.
Regards,
Tony
At 15:09 19/05/2001 +0200, you wrote:
>I have to disapprove the motion to forward the 802.15.1 draft to sponsor
>ballot.
>
>In addition to supporting Bob O'Hara's and Roger Marks views, I have 2
>additional concerns:
>
>1. the comment resolution file is too complicated for comprehending what the
>disposition
> of the comments is
> The standard companion writes for recirculation ballots "Copies of
>the outstanding
> negatives and the ballot review committee's responses to them with
>the reasons
> for rejecting the proposed changes"
>
> The actual file received is a trail many recirculation ballots. This
>is fine for the
> archive of the work. However, a reviewer for recirculation ballots
>needs to get a
> clear and simple representation of the outstanding negatives.
>
> The file presented as the file with unresolved negatives does not
>have a tab
> with "unresolved negatives". Taking the LB10 Comments as such a
>representation,
> one have to make too many assumptions to understand the effects of
>two columns
> with codes. Some of the comments are depicted as Accepted and Open.
>Does
> that mean that the comment is accepted and the resulting edits have
>not yet
> been included in the draft?
>
>2. it appears to me that the draft going into Sponsor Ballot is a moving
>target
> The comments marked as Accepted and Open, gives me the impression
>that
> results of the comments are still to be made in the a future cycle.
>
> LB 10 comment number 9 has the following Editor's note:
> Editor Note: ICG the Editor-in-Chief will submit a comment in
>Sponsor Ballot
> and submit a Bluetooth errata too that explicitly identifies the
>word usage in
> question both in the Std and the Spec - using each organizations
>unique
> paragraph referencing in their source documents - the BRC will
>resolve this
> comment prior to the completion of the Sponsor Ballot phase.
>
> Does "prior to the completion of the Sponsor Ballot phase" mean that
>during
> Sponsor Ballot, comments from Working Group Ballots are introduced
>into the
> draft?
>
>I appreciate that the synchronization of two organizations is difficult. The
>resulting time, needed to synchronize need to be taken, rather than starting
>a ballot with pending changes.
>
>Regards
>---------------
>Vic Hayes
>Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies
>Zadelstede 1-10
>3431 JZ Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
>Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 2)
>FAX: +31 30 609 7498
>e-mail: vichayes@agere.com
>http://www.orinocowireless.com/
>
> > ----------
> > From: Jim Carlo[SMTP:jcarlo@ti.com]
> > Reply To: jcarlo@ti.com
> > Sent: 08 May 2001 13:24 PM
> > To: IEEE802
> > Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC Ballot: Forward IEEE 802.15.1 to Sponsor
> > Ballot
> >
> >
> > RESEND TO CLARIFY WHAT ACTION WE ARE TAKING. SORRY FOR DUPLICATION. I HAVE
> > ALSO ADDED POINTERS TO DRAFTS, REMAINING COMMENTS, BALLOT RESOLUTION PER
> > VIC
> > HAYES REQUEST.
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > SEC OFFICIAL EMAIL BALLOT 802.0/8May2001
> > Issue Date: 8May2001 Closing Date: 19May2001
> > Moved By: Bob Heile Seconded By: Stuart Kerry
> > Move: Approve Forwarding to Sponsor Ballot: 802.15.1 (Draft Standard for
> > Part 15.1: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
> > specifications for Wireless Personal Area Networks(TM))
> >
> > Notes:
> >
> > 1) During the Recirculation Ballot, one additional No voter made eight
> > comments, these comments were resolved without Technical Changes to the
> > draft through discussions with the WG Ballot Resolution Group, and the No
> > voter has changed his vote to an approve. The original NO voter continued
> > to
> > vote NO with additional NO comments. Because of the additional No vote
> > received (even though resolved), a new SEC motion is required for approval
> > to move to Sponsor Ballot.
> >
> > 2) During the IEEE 802 Plenary HH SEC Meeting on 15Mar01 the following
> > motion was approved:
> > "Move that the ExCom forward IEEE Draft 802.15.1/D1.0 to Sponsor ballot,
> > based on a successful completion of a WG re-circulation ballot.
> > Conditional
> > approval to expire at the beginning of the Portland Plenary Meeting"
> >
> > 3) The final ballot count is:
> > 74 Working Group Voting Members
> > 56 Voting Approve
> > 1 Voting Do Not Approve (Disapprove comments circulated during last
> > recirculation ballot)
> > 1 Abstain
> >
> > 4) The Draft can be found here:
> > http://ieee802.org/15/private/Draft/
> > 99000D10P802-15-1__Draft_Standard.pdf
> > Note: The username/password for the WG Web Site is: P802.15/way_cool
> >
> > II. The unresolved negative comment Workbook can be found here:
> > http://ieee802.org/15/pub/LB10/01117r12P802-15_WG-LB8-Comment-Form.xls
> >
> > III. The letters & reports on resolution can be found here:
> > http://ieee802.org/15/pub/LB10/Gilb-LB10-Decline-Letter.pdf
> > LB8-Reply-Comments_4May01.PDF
> > LB10-Comments_4May01.PDF
> > or all via:
> > http://ieee802.org/15/pub/LB10/LB10.html
> >
> >
> > Jim Carlo (j.carlo@ieee.org) Cellular:1-214-693-1776
> > Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274
> > TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
> > Vice Chair, IEEE-SA Standards Board
> > Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
> >