RE: [802SEC] +++SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++Ballot on WG electronic voting
disapprove,
roger has done a good job of commenting
At 03:18 PM 6/4/02 -0600, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>Disapprove, with the following comments:
>
>The rules currently provide two type of voting in WGs: (1) Voting at
>Meetings, and (2) Voting by Letter Ballot. The proposed rules change tries
>to develop the electronic voting procedure as an extension of "Voting at
>Meetings". I see a lot of problems with this, mainly related to the
>formation and amendment of the motion. It's hard to extend the checks and
>balances from the meeting room to the email reflector.
>
>Instead, I think we should address the issue by modifying the second
>voting alternative: the Letter Ballot. We understand Letter Ballots, and
>the rules to support them already exist. Furthermore, the current rules
>already distinguish between two kinds of Letter Ballots: (a) submitting a
>draft to Sponsor Ballot, and (b) "other matters"... "at the discretion of
>the Working Group Chair". So we can simply and effectively address the
>problem at hand simply by specifying a different duration for the "other
>matters".
>
>My current suggestion is simply to change:
>
>"The letter ballot response time must be at least forty days from the time
>of "sending" postmark to the postmark of the returned ballot."
>
>to the following:
>
>"For a decision to submit a draft to the Sponsor Ballot Group, the letter
>ballot response time must be at least forty days from the time of
>"sending" postmark to the postmark of the returned ballot. The letter
>ballot may also be conducted by electronic means; in this case, the
>response time is reduced to thirty days. For recirculation ballots, and
>for letter ballots not related to the submission of draft standards, the
>response time must be at least fifteen days, or ten days when conducted by
>electronic means."
>
>[I've tossed in a shorter time for recirculation ballots, since we don't
>define that elsewhere.]
>
>Also, in 5.1.3.4 ("The rights of the Working Group members include the
>following:"), change
>
>d) To vote by mail on drafts to be submitted to the Sponsor Ballot Group.
>
>to
>
>d) To vote in Working Group Letter Ballots.
>
>
>Also, in 5.1.3.3, change:
>
>Membership may be lost if two of the last three Working Group letter
>ballots are not returned, or are returned with an abstention other than
>"lack of technical expertise."
>
>by inserting the words in brackets:
>
>Membership may be lost if two of the last three Working Group letter
>ballots [regarding draft standards] are not returned, or are returned with
>an abstention other than "lack of technical expertise."
>
>Roger
>
>
>
>>Hello again,
>>
>>Well as of today, I have recieved no further comment on this ballot (since
>>my last reminder). That means 9 of the 12 voting members of the SEC have
>>not voted yet. There are only 9 more days till the ballot closes. Please
>>express your opinions one way or the other on this ballot.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Mat
>>
>>Matthew Sherman
>>PTSM - Communications Technology Research
>>AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>>Room B255, Building 103
>>180 Park Avenue
>>P.O. Box 971
>>Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>>Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
>>Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
>>EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Matthew Sherman [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 8:21 AM
>>To: 'stds-802-sec@ieee.org'
>>Cc: 'p.nikolich@ieee.org'; 'Geoff Thompson'
>>Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on W
>>G electronic voting
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi Everyone,
>>
>>Per Paul's request, I will be tabulating the results of this Ballot, and
>>working to "get out the vote". The vote formally closes at June 8, 2002 12
>>midnight EDT. We still have about 3 weeks, but we only have only had 3
>>people formally vote to date. Here is the current vote Talley:
>>
>>Vote Talley as of 5/14/02
>>
>>00 Paul Nikolich DNV
>>01 Geoff Thompson DIS
>>02 Buzz Rigsbee DNV
>>03 Bob O'Hara DIS
>>04 Bill Quackenbush DNV
>>05 Tony Jeffree DNV
>>06 Bob Grow APP
>>07 Stuart Kerry DNV
>>08 Bob Heile DNV
>>09 Roger Marks DNV
>>10 Mike Takefman DNV
>>11 Carl Stevenson DNV
>> total:
>>
>>6 APPROVES required to PASS. Ballot Currently FAILING ( 1 APP, 2 DIS, 9
>>DNV, 0 ABS)
>>
>>
>>Please let me know if you see any errors in the accounting above. Note that
>>I was a little unsure from the comments if Mike had formally voted yet or
>>not, but for now I have him as not voting.
>>We had some lively discussion on this ballot earlier on. A synopsis of the
>>comments to date is provided below. However there has been no real activity
>>on this ballot recently. If people have made up their minds, I encourage
>>them to express a formal vote. If not, I encourage them to express their
>>concerns so that others may consider them, and we may continue to debate the
>>issue during the remaining 3 weeks.
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>
>>Mat
>>
>>
>>
>>Matthew Sherman
>>PTSM - Communications Technology Research
>>AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>>Room B255, Building 103
>>180 Park Avenue
>>P.O. Box 971
>>Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>>Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
>>Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
>>EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>>
>>
>>==========================================================================
>>Summary of comments to date:
>>
>>Ballot Comments:
>>
>>Mike Takefman [tak@cisco.com] Mon 4/1/2002 9:41 AM
>>
>>5.1.4.2.1 Voting on technical motions at Meeting
>>...
>>The Working Group Chair may vote at meetings. ...
>>
>>This should be changed to "The Working Group Chair may vote at meetings
>>or on electronic votes." OR
>>"The Working Group Chair may vote on all motions" OR
>>some wording with the same effect
>>
>>I will vote approve if the wording is improved.
>>
>>If others do not feel the original wording restricts the chair
>>from voting on electronic motions I withdraw the comment and
>>Approve.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com] Mon 4/1/2002 12:31 PM
>>
>>The text in 5.1.4.2.1 is not clear. It gives the impression that if 51% of
>>the Working Group membership returns a ballot then the ballot is valid.
>>
>>That could be:
>> 50% abstain
>> 40% Approve
>> 10% Disapprove
>>And the measure would pass.
>>I'm willing to have this sort of thing happen at a Plenary Meeting.
>>I'm not willing to have it happen by letter ballot on matters that should
>>be decided in a meeting.
>>
>>If the text is changed such that non-returned votes are considered to be
>>negative on mail ballots then I will change my vote.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Bob O'Hara [bob@bstormnetworks.com] Mon 4/1/2002 5:17 PM
>>
>>I vote DISAPPROVE until the following additions are made to the text
>>to be changed:
>>
>>1) In an earlier email exchange I suggested that non-returned email
>>ballots be considered exactly the same as non-returned letter
>>ballots, i.e., that they negatively affect the non-balloter's voting
>>status. Please change the first sentence in 5.1.3.3 to the
>>following:
>>
>>"Membership may be lost if any two of the last three Working Group
>>letter or email ballots are not returned, or are returned with an
>>abstention other than "lack of technical expertise.""
>>
>>2) Contrary to Geoff's position, I would like to see a minimum return
>>requirement as it is currently stated in 5.1.4.2.1, without requiring
>>that non-returned ballots be considered negative votes. Counting
>>non-returned ballots as anything at all makes absolutely no sense to
>>me. It means that someone who is no longer participating, who has
>>retired, who has moved into another area of work, possibly even
>>someone who is dead, can affect the outcome of an electronic ballot
>>simply by not replying. They can continue to do this until their
>>voting status is lost as described in 5.1.3.3. Last I checked, the
>>Daly's of Chicago were not running the LMSC.
>>
>>What I would like to see is a minimum abstention requirement, like
>>that for sponsor ballots. Please add to 5.1.4.2.1 "Non-returned
>>ballots on votes by electronic means are not counted as either yea,
>>nea, or abstain. On votes by electronic means, a vote is not valid
>>if more than 30% of the ballots returned are abstentions."
>>
>>3) I believe that the change to the title of section 5.1.4.2.1 has
>>the unfortunate effect of limiting voting by electronic means to only
>>technical matters. As such, it would prevent a WG from voting by
>>electronic means on any procedural matters, such as sending liaison
>>letters that were not available by the close of a meeting. Is this
>>the intent of the rules change? If not, perhaps there should be a
>>separate section on voting by electronic means, as there is for
>>voting by letter ballot.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com] Mon 4/1/2002 5:11 PM
>>
>>Bob, for email balloting, I believe that "Lack of Time" is a real and valid
>>reason for not voting on some of the issues. Would you consider allowing
>>"other than "lack of technical expertise."" to change to "other than "lack
>>of technical expertise" or "lack of time"", in your proposed text change?
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Bob O'Hara [bob@bstormnetworks.com] Mon 4/1/2002 5:17 PM
>>
>>I would consider such an addition. However, I think that this would require
>>that we describe voting by electronic means in a section of its own, since
>>there are now exceptions only for electronic ballots that do not apply to
>>letter ballots.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com] Mon 4/1/2002 5:49 PM
>>
>>Bob, certainly once we open up balloting to electronic ballots I assume that
>>they could be used for purposes other than voting on document drafts. It is
>>for these other drafts that I would propose the change. The wording for
>>voting on document drafts should be generalized to include electronic
>>balloting so that we do not have to separately spell out what the rules for
>>voting are electronically on those drafts, as distinct from voting in a
>>letter ballot.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com] Tue 4/2/2002 8:28 PM
>>
>>WARNING!!! We are starting down the same "rat hole" that stopped any change
>>in 1999. As I recall, when we started hacking up the text to open the WG
>>electronic ballot process for purposes other than electronic letter ballots,
>>every proposed alteration created additional conflicts with other provisions
>>in the rules, and approval decreased. I think most of the problems stemmed
>>from conflicts on eballot periods, and lack of clarity as to how an
>>electronic motion is made, seconded (?), etc. If we want to codify
>>electronic WG motions and voting in the LMSC rules, I expect many more
>>changes will be required than what has been proposed by the other Bob's
>>below.
>>
>>I would recommend that we first legitimize our current electronic processes
>>before trying again to enable and fine tune additional business via
>>electronic means (i.e., make those other changes a separate rules change
>>proposal). Personally, I need to get my taxes done before I spend any time
>>revisiting the more complex proposals.
>>
>>Some comments:
>>
>>1. The addition of "technical" to the first line of 5.1.4.2 was to
>>eliminate a conflict with other parts of the rules. The 75% threshold
>>already in 5.1.4.2.1 was clearly only to apply to technical decisions.
>>Reading all the rules with current text will show an inconsistency on the
>>approval threshold for a procedural motion at a meeting.
>>
>>2. The essence of the proposed change is to allow electronic means for a
>>letter ballot. (The added sentence to 5.1.4.2.2.) In that context, Bob
>>O'Hara's change #1 is not necessary. It is a letter ballot if electronic or
>>written if we adopt the proposed change. This change was felt necessary
>>because the word "postmark" implies a snail mail ballot process (and the
>>different ballot period recognizes the improved delivery time of electronic
>>means).
>>
>>3. The rules already allow the Working Group Chair discression to submit
>>other matters to letter ballot (5.1.4.2.2). Bob Love, if you want anything
>>other than an electronic letter ballot, we are heading down the "rat hole".
>>Bob O'Hara, could we please make your #3 a seperate rule change effort for a
>>new section as you offer.
>>
>>4. Bob O'Hara and Geoff. I don't recall if "quorum" comments were part of
>>the discussions three years ago. The proposed text makes no change to
>>existing letter ballot thresholds (again, it only allows a letter ballot to
>>be electronic). The proposed text will not do anything to change what is
>>currently allowed other than: a) decrease the letter ballot period to 35
>>days when conducted electronically, b) lower cost and resource barriers for
>>submitting other matters to letter ballot.
>>
>>5. It is possible within WG rules to tighten things up (e.g., 802.3 rules
>>include a 30% abstention threshold).
>>
>>6. Recent activities indicate that we need to improve our language on
>>quorums. To that end, my preference would be a separate rules change for
>>the WG quorum text. As part of that change, I would extract the quorum
>>sentences from 5.1.4.2.1 into a new subsection 5.1.4.2.3 and work on them
>>independent from enabling electronic letter ballots.
>>
>>Something about this change engenders scope creap. From the comments so far
>>we have desire to extend scope to: define electronic motions, change the
>>definition of quorum, add an abstention threshold
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) [pat_thaler@agilent.com] Wed 4/3/2002 2:56 PM
>>
>>1) The most urgent matter is to legitimize the Voting by Letter ballot
>>provisions for progressing drafts.
>>
>>As such, I note that there is still a whole in that the text still does not
>>recognize a shorter ballot period for recirculation. I would like to see a
>>statement added to the paragraph like: "These times do not apply to
>>recirculation ballots." or "Recirculation ballots must be at least 15 days
>>for postal ballots and 10 days for email."
>>
>>If working out the details of non-letter ballot email votes takes more time,
>>then they should probably be split into separate rules change ballots.
>>
>>2) Procedural - according to the text here, procedural motions don't exist
>>at all. The chair decides procedural matters. (see 5.1.4.1) This is
>>different from the practice in many (all?) of the working groups which do
>>vote on procedural matters. The usual working group practice of majority
>>vote on procedural matters doesn't seem to be in the LMSC rules at all.
>>
>>I also think the particular example Bob O'Hara raises of sending a liaison
>>letter would be a technical vote in most cases because our liaison letters
>>often contain technical material such as advising another group of a working
>>group's opinion on a technical matter.
>>
>>I'm not sure what to do about procedural matters as some more minor ones are
>>decided by chairs but substantive ones like setting times and places for
>>interim meetings and affirming agendas are done by working group votes. One
>>way to handle this would be for the LMSC rules to make the LMSC rules a bit
>>more flexible on this point changing the first line of 5.1.4.1 "Procedural
>>matters may be decided by the Chair of the Working Group or by a vote of the
>>working group. The Working Group Chair decides which procedural matters
>>should be voted upon using the guidance of the Working Group operating
>>rules."
>>
>>3) When motions are conducted at a meeting, there is an opportunity for
>>people to discuss their points of view on the strengths and weaknesses of a
>>motion before voting. There is also the ability to adjust the motion based
>>upon that discussion. If email voting is to produce decisions of equal
>>quality, then there needs to be a provision for discussion. (This is part of
>>the rat hole, but it needs to be addressed or email votes should not be
>>given an equal standing to meeting votes.)
>>
>>There isn't a Robert's Rules of Order for email motions so we need to create
>>at least a minimal structure for them.
>>
>>Add a paragraph to 5.1.4.2.1
>>When it is necessary to conduct a vote on a technical motion by electronic
>>means, then the following procedure shall be followed. The Working Group
>>Chair or Vice Chair shall send a notice to the Working group to initiate a
>>discussion period on the proposed motion. Discussion shall use a means that
>>allows working group members to observe and comment upon the discussion. At
>>the end of the discussion period, the Working Group Chair or a Vice Chair
>>shall post the final motion and open the balloting period. Working Group
>>operating rules should provide guidance on the length of the discussion and
>>ballot periods.
>>
>>4) Abstentions - Working groups cover a large scope and not everyone feels
>>able to have an opinion on everything. I hesitate to do something where an
>>abstention equals a NO. If someone really doesn't have a clue, I don't want
>>them to just cast a Yes vote because it is easy and they don't want to
>>obstruct what they don't understand. Therefore, I prefer a separate limit on
>>percentage of abstentions over putting the abstentions into the calculation
>>% Yes votes. I wish there were two kinds of abstain - one for "I don't care
>>about or understand this area and never will" and one for "I'm not ready to
>>vote on this yet because I am undecided but I expect to have a position
>>later." Because a lot of the latter kind of abstention usually indicates
>>that the vote is on shaky ground but the former doesn't.
>>
>>5) I don't see the relevance of the historical notes and I don't think one
>>voter should be singled out as the cause of earlier non-passage.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Bob O'Hara [bob@bstormnetworks.com] Mon 4/8/2002 2:21 PM
>>
>>I can agree with Bob's requests to separate the various issues into
>>individual rules changes, if it is made absolutely clear that the current
>>rule change proposal for voting by electronic means is as a substitution
>>only for letter ballots on drafts. I want it very clear that voting by
>>electronic means under this particular rule change is not for the conduct or
>>ordinary working group business, including the ratification of work done at
>>interim meetings with no quorum, or the posting of any other motion than the
>>question to forward a WG draft to sponsor ballot with the requirement of
>>technical comments to support a vote of "no". Any WG rules that are not
>>consistent with this interpretation of the LMSC rules must be clearly
>>indicated by the SEC to be invalid.
>>
>>I continue to vote DISAPPROVE until the clarifications above are included in
>>the rule change proposal or until it is made clear that the rule change is
>>limited as I describe above and there is not yet any authority for the WGs
>>to conduct general business electronically. I do not want a repeat of the
>>debacle after the January 802.11 interim meeting.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com] Fri 5/10/2002 8:23 PM
>>
>>Please note my email of 4/2 about the scope creep in recommendations by
>>other's commenting on this ballot; and support for independent rules change
>>items to address some of those concerns (plus one of my own).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>=========================================================================
>>Preballot Comments:
>>
>>Mike Takefman [tak@cisco.com]
>>
>>a question from one of my people. What consitutes a quorum for an
>>electronic vote (either motion or ballot).
>>
>>For example, this SEC rules change ballot marks a failure to vote
>>as a vote against. Hence, one could argue there is no quorum requirement
>>as all voters end up with either a no or whatever they actually responded
>>with and 100% of the voters are counted.
>>
>>Another interpretation is similar to those of a meeting. Specifically
>>the number of people who respond to the ballot as a yes or no or abstain
>>must be greater than 50% of the voting members.
>>
>>
>>Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com]
>>
>>Mike, I believe 50% of the eligible voters voting YES, NO, or ABSTAIN, is a
>>quorum for electronic balloting. See the 802.5 Working Group electronic
>>balloting rules I posted on the 802.17 reflector which explicitly specify
>>that.
>>
>>
>>Paul Nikolich [Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net]
>>
>>The quorom for an electonic ballot is that 50% of the working group voting
>>members must respond YES, NO or ABSTAIN. This is exactly the same as a
>>quorum for any WG meeting that is not held during a plenary session.
>>
>>
>>Mike Takefman [tak@cisco.com]
>>
>>The confusing point was that your email indicated that
>>for the current SEC motion a failure to vote was counted as a NO.
>>I took a quick look at the rules and it is not clear to me why a
>>fail to vote on an SEC motion is a no vote. Rather the rule 3.4.2.1
>>appears to state that a majority of the voting SEC members must reply.
>>
>>
>>Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com]
>>
>>Mike, for SEC email ballots the eligible voters all have a very significant
>>commitment to remain engaged and participate in the process. Therefore, the
>>SEC electronic balloting rules call for motions to pass with >50% of ALL
>>ELIGIBLE VOTERS. As a consequence, not voting on an SEC electronic ballot
>>is equivalent to casting a NO vote.
>>
>>Since the ballot group for any of the Working Groups is so much larger, even
>>getting 50% of the voters to respond is an effort. It would be a useless
>>exercise to require Working Group e-mail ballots to have greater than 50% of
>>the voting members cast a YES vote.
>>
>>
>>Paul Nikolich [Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net]
>>
>>The rules on voting for rules changes (3.6.5) require 2/3 approval or ALL
>>voting members on the SEC. Therefore, if you do not vote, you are
>>effectively counted as a negative:
>>
>>Approval ratio = approves/(negatives + abstain + did not vote).
>>
>>Also for electronic balloting (not concerned with a rules change) 3.4.2.1,
>>you require a majority of eligible voting SEC members. Again, the approval
>>ratio puts ALL members of the SEC in the denominator.
>>
>>Therefore a quorum for SEC email ballots is 100% of the SEC voting members.
>>
>>
>>Bob O'Hara [bob@bstormnetworks.com]
>>
>>I would like to suggest that a quorum for an electronic WG ballot should be
>>50% of the voting membership of the WG. I suggest this because all of the
>>voting members will have received the email announcing the particular motion
>>on which the vote is to take place. This means, to me, that all voting
>>members are "present" and have heard the question placed before the WG, just
>>as if they were standing in the room at a face to face meeting.
>>Getting the voters to respond is simple, the rule should state that failure
>>to return any 2 out of 3 electronic ballots results in loss of voting
>>membership. This addition helps the WG in two respects. First it increases
>>participation in the business of the WG. Second, it helps to rapidly prune
>>the voting roster of inactive members, resulting in a lower number of voting
>>members being required to reach a quorum.
>>
>>
>>Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [carlstevenson@agere.com]
>>
>>I agree with Bob's rationale, as stated below,
>>with the understanding that the 50% is the
>>total of those voting Yes, No, and Abstain.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net]
>>Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 3:18 PM
>>To: 'Geoff Thompson'; 'Sherman, Matthew'
>>Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on
>>WG electronic voting
>>
>>
>>Geoff,
>>
>>FYI Mat and I have discussed this ballot and Mat has agreed to 'run this
>>ballot'. This means he will: bug the SEC to return their ballot's on time,
>>tally the votes, collect and collate the comments and supervise the comment
>>resolution process.
>>
>>--Paul
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
>>Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 12:31 PM
>>To: p.nikolich@ieee.org
>>Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>>Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on
>>WG electronic voting
>>
>>
>>DISAPPROVE
>>
>>The text in 5.1.4.2.1 is not clear. It gives the impression that if 51% of
>>the Working Group membership returns a ballot then the ballot is valid.
>>
>>That could be:
>> 50% abstain
>> 40% Approve
>> 10% Disapprove
>>And the measure would pass.
>>I'm willing to have this sort of thing happen at a Plenary Meeting.
>>I'm not willing to have it happen by letter ballot on matters that should
>>be decided in a meeting.
>>
>>If the text is changed such that non-returned votes are considered to be
>>negative on mail ballots then I will change my vote.
>>
>>Geoff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 07:04 AM 4/1/02 -0500, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>>>Dear SEC members,
>>>
>>>Attached you will find the text for the SEC rules change letter ballot on
>>WG
>>>Electronic Voting. (Note this is a resend of the March 17, 2002 letter
>>>ballot notice with the start time revised to 4/1/02 because we did not
>> >officially approve it for distribution until last night. Other than that
>>it
>>>is unchanged).
>>>
>>>Scope: To permit voting by electronic means at the working group level.
>>>
>>>Purpose: To facilitate the WG consensus process.
>>>
>>>The ballot opens April 1, 2002 and closes June 8, 2002 12 midnight EDT
>>>(remember if you do not vote or abstain it is equivalent to a DISAPPROVE
>>>vote). Buzz, please ensure this gets sent to the 802-wide email list as
>>>well. WG chairs, if you haven't already done so, please invite your WG
>>>members to comment through you.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>--Paul Nikolich
>>>
>>>Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Project
>>>email: p.nikolich@ieee.org
>>>cell: 857.205.0050
>>>mail: 18 Bishops Lane, Lynnfield, MA 01940
>>>
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