RE: [802SEC] RE: <802.11Technical> IMPORTANT-ACTION REQUIRED FOR BRIEF EMAIL B ALLOT
Stuart,
I would like to respond to your solicitation of viewpoints from
members on this matter. If we are to apply a standard, then it should
be applied in an evenhanded manner. It is worth noting that Bob is the
editor of TGf. If we use this group as a yardstick, some comparisons
can be drawn.
The first letter ballot for TGf drew over 700 comments from
reviewers. About half of these comments were technical. Based on these
results, it is difficult to understand how objections could be raised
in regard to TGg seeking to go to letter ballot, especially given the
fact that the members of TGg voted overwhelmingly to do so.
If my memory is correct, TGf is now on its third letter ballot.
Seeking input from the broader membership is a healthy part of the
standards development process . As I mentioned above, the members of
Task Group G voted overwhelmingly to go to letter ballot. The document
is ready for review by the WG. Any comments generated during the letter
ballot process will be dealt with via comment resolution. TGg should
move forward with a letter ballot.
Regarding the matter of a quorum, the issue is covered in the WG
Operating Rules. In the absence of a quorum, we had several options for
dealing with the business at hand. Section 2.7.2 deals specifically
with Interim Meetings. Note that actions taken at these meetings are
valid EVEN if a quorum is not present.
************************************************************************
*********
From 802.11 WG Op Rules, Section 2.7.2:
"Official Actions taken at these meetings are valid if one of
the following occurs:
1.) A quorum is present
2.) Confirmation vote passes at the next plenary
3.) Appropriate level of approval (75% technical, 50%
for procedural) from a letter ballot that has been pre-authorized by the
WG at the time of the meeting approval
4.) Specific empowerment has been pre-authorized by the
WG at the time of the meeting approval.
If a quorum is not present, then all subject matter voted on at
that meeting must be reaffirmed using one of the following methods:
1.) Reaffirm by a 40 day WG letter ballot
2.) Reaffirm at the next WG Planary
************************************************************************
**********
One option would be to adopt the resolution to go to letter
ballot and reaffirm it at the next meeting. We have had several interim
meetings in the past that did not have a quorum and we operated
successfully and productively on this basis. With the meeting in
Autralia fast approaching, I am disappointed that these rules have
somehow been brought into question.
Regards,
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart Kerry [mailto:stuart.kerry@philips.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 5:28 PM
To: stds-802-11@ieee.org
Cc: 802sec (stds-802-sec@ieee.org)
Subject: Re: [802SEC] RE: <802.11Technical> IMPORTANT-ACTION REQUIRED
FOR BRIEF EMAIL B ALLOT
Members of 802.11,
I would urge all members to review the 802.11 WG Operating rules,
section
2.8.2, sited by Bob O'Hara, regarding the present TGG Draft email ballot
before they vote in this important issue on whether to go to WG Letter
Ballot on the draft. I would stress that all members should understand
and
interpret this section themselves. As chair I am seeking the viewpoint
of
the members from the minority and majority stance before going forward
with
any action. Hopefully with a consensus view. I would also ask members to
refer to 802 Operating Rules as well.
The other thing that has become clear is, OUR rules are not clear, and
need
urgent revision to make them workable, and become understood by all. The
other area is the definition of a quorum at Interim meetings, and the
empowerment motions we are using for work to be completed at interims.
This
latter area has been raised many times at the 802 SEC, and needs to be
resolved promptly. Which I have raised once again with the 802 Chair,
and
urge him to address this early on in the week at the St. Louis plenary
meeting.
Finally, this current ballot LB# 31 began on Friday, January 25th, 2002
and
WILL END at 2359 CST on January 30,2002. So I empress upon you all to
vote
before the close.
Stuart J. Kerry
At 04:50 PM 1/26/02 -0800, Bob O'Hara wrote:
>As I pointed out at the closing plenary (and will no doubt be pilloried
for
>mentioning here) the TGg draft does not meet the requirements set forth
in
>our operating rules to be sent for letter ballot. The operating rules
state
>the following:
>
>2.8.2 Draft Standard Balloting Requirements
>Before a draft is submitted to WG letter ballot it shall in addition
have
>met the following requirements:
>a) It must be complete with no open technical issues.
>
>And
>
>e) It must be approved for submittal to WG ballot at the 802.11 WG
closing
>plenary.
>
>It is clear that the draft created at the interim meeting does not meet
>either of these criteria.
>
>The first criterion is debatable. Some may consider that the lack of a
>PICS, of MIB additions, and of changes to the MAC state machine that
>correspond to the changes to the MAC proposed in the text do not
constitute
>"incompleteness". I disagree. You are asked by this motion to judge
the
>technical completeness, not technical correctness of the draft. Each
of the
>items listed here would require a 75% approval to include in the draft.
>They are therefore technical. Their lack in the draft makes it
incomplete.
>Look at the 802.11b supplement to the 802.11 standard fro an example of
what
>is required to be complete.
>
>You will be told that "this is the way it has been done before. Look
at
>802.11b, it is still not correct, we just had to do that corrigendum
thing."
>This is a red herring, attempting to make you look away from the real
issue.
>The corrigendum has to do with CORRECTNESS, not COMPLETENESS.
>
>You, as a voting member of 802.11, are being asked to make a
significant
>investment of your time to conduct a full technical review of a draft
>standard, at the risk of losing your voting rights if you do not
respond.
>It is incumbent on the task group creating this draft to have completed
its
>work, to the best of its ability and knowledge, before asking you to
accept
>this obligation. It is my opinion that they have not completed their
work.
>It was stated in the January closing plenary that the editor "was
working on
>the MIB text". Obviously, the task group knows the draft is not
complete,
>if the editor is working on text creation.
>
>The second criterion is not debatable. This draft was not approved at
any
>802.11 WG closing plenary. Even if the plenary in November "empowered"
the
>action proposed by this motion, it did so in violation of its own
operating
>rules. This draft did not exist in November and was in no way
"approved" at
>that time. This draft also was not approved in the closing plenary of
the
>802.11 WG in January.
>
>Contrary to the statements made in the email announcing this ballot,
there
>ARE certain procedures required to forward a draft to WG letter ballot.
>There are very good reasons for the existence of these procedures.
>
>Therefore because I am certain that this motion will not be withdrawn
even
>though it violates our operating rules, I ask that you vote against the
>motion.
>
> -Bob O'Hara
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stuart Kerry [mailto:stuart.kerry@philips.com]
>Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:04 PM
>To: stds-802-11@ieee.org
>Cc: Stuart.Kerry@philips.com
>Subject: <802.11Technical> IMPORTANT-ACTION REQUIRED FOR BRIEF EMAIL
BALLOT
>Importance: High
>
>
>To 802.11 Colleagues-
>
>Due to an unfortunate set of circumstances, the closing plenary of
802.11
>was adjourned prematurely. A more careful review of the minutes from
the
>Austin meeting revealed that a motion was passed to empower the working
>group to issue the 11g draft at the January 2002 meeting.
Procedurally, no
>further vote was required, but in the confusion, this was not realized
until
>it was too late. The exact wording of that motion is: "Move to empower
>802.11 to issue a WG letter ballot on the 802.11g draft at the January
2002
>interim session" (59,0,2).
>
>Following these events I called a meeting to discuss the issues. It
was
>attended by myself, Harry Worstel, Al Petrick, Vic Hayes, Bob Heile and
Paul
>Nikolich, chair of 802, on the phone. The meeting was later joined by
>Matthew Shoemake. Although it was agreed that a letter ballot could be
>initiated without further action, based on the Austin motion, I decided
it
>would be best to initiate a brief 5 day email ballot to gain the
>affirmation of the Working Group membership. Such ballots are within
the
>chair's prerogative and in discussion with Paul, are consistent with
802
>Executive Committee precedence.
>
>The 5 day email ballot will be called LB 31 and consists of the
following:
>
>Motion: Begin a 40 day Working Group letter ballot of TGg Draft 2.1,
>starting at noon CST on Jan 31, 2002 and ending at noon CST on March
11,
>2002
>
>This email ballot is procedural and will require 50% approval of those
>voting yes or no in order to pass . Based on the current voting roster
of
>287, a minimum of 144 voters must return ballots. There can be no more
than
>30% abstentions of all votes as stated in the 802 rules.
>
>Vote YES, NO, or ABSTAIN. No comments are required as there will be no
>resolution of the no votes. Because of the brief nature of this
ballot, if
>for some reason you can not vote, it will not impact your voting
rights.
>
>Ballots should be returned to stuart.kerry@philips.com with copies to
>apetrick@icefyre.com and hworstell@research.att.com.
>
>Please put LB31-{your last name}-{y,n,a} in the subject line of your
>return email. example (LB31-Kerry-yes)
>
>This ballot will begin immediately and end at 2359 CST on January
30,2002
>-------------------------
>
>We also discussed the balance of business that remained on the agenda.
TGe
>had hoped to bring a rules change proposal to the floor. Based on the
length
>of the TGg discussion,however, it was unlikely we would have had time
for it
>anyway before the hard stop at noon. Regardless, the chairs advisory
core
>will meet next week to review the presentation/interpretation of the
Working
>Group rules and make a recommendation for action at the opening session
in
>St. Louis.
>
>Additionally, Vic was unable to formally secure WG approval on the
>Regulatory submissions, but these documents were reviewed and approved
in
>TGh ( 23,0,2) and in 802.15 (unanimous consent). Based on that
approval,
>it was decided to pass them through to the 802 Executive Committee for
final
>review and then send them on to their destination without loss of time.
>
>I want to thank you for a very productive week and regret that it ended
on a
>bit of an unfortunate note. I believe with these actions we can feel
proud
>that we have accomplished all that we set out to do even if it was by a
>slightly circuitous route.
>
>Regards
>
>Stuart J Kerry
>
>
>
>.
Bob Heile, Ph.D
Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
Chair, ZigBee Alliance
11 Louis Road
Attleboro, MA 02703
Phone: 508-222-1393
Mobile: 781-929-4832
Fax: 508-222-0515
email: bheile@ieee.org
Pager: 800-759-8888 PIN 1109355