Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ MOTION: Authorizeconditional forwarding of P802.11g/D6.1 to Sponsor Ballot
I don't ever recall seeing a Conditional Approval email ballot. I
think that Conditional Approval was invented to cover the case in
which a ballot is not quite finished at the time of an SEC meeting.
If we aren't in a meeting, the SEC is normally asked to review the
ballot after it closes.
Roger
At 11:47 AM -0500 03/01/25, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>Dear SEC,
>
>This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the
>below SEC motion to conditionally forward IEEEE P802.11g/D6.1 to
>LMSC Sponsor Ballot, moved by Stuart Kerry, seconded by Mat Sherman.
>
>The email ballot opens on Saturday January 25 12noon EST and
>closes Tuesday February 4 12noon EST.
>
>Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector and to Matthew
>Shoemake, chair of the 802.11g task group.
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul Nikolich
>
>
>Subject: SEC Motion: Conditionally forward P802.11g/D6.1 for Sponsor Ballot.
>Moved: Stuart Kerry Second: Matthew Sherman
>
>MOTION: To conditionally forward IEEE P1802.11g/D6.1 ("Draft
>Ammendment for Further Higher data rate extension in the 2.4GHz
>band") for Sponsor Ballot.
>
>Explanation:
>
>The Working Group 802.11g Letter Ballot 50 ("To forward IEEE
>P802.11g/D5.1 for Sponsor Ballot") ran from November 27, 2002 to
>January 8, 2003.
>
>The results were:
>Approve: 256 Disapprove: 34 Approval Ratio: 88% [75% required]
>Abstain: 18 Ballots: 308 Elligble Voters:321 Return
>Ratio: 96% [50% required]
>Comments (no votes) : 185
>
>The Ballot Resolution Committee met January 13-17th, and as a result
>several voters confirmed they would change their votes based on
>D6.1. The updated vote tally is as follows:
>
>Approve: 281 Disapprove: 9 Approval Ratio: 97% [75% required]
>Abstain: 18 Ballots: 308 Elligble Voters:321 Return
>Ratio: 96% [50% required]
>Comments (unresolved no votes): 57
>
>Responses to the comments developed by a Ballot Resolution
>Committee, and the comments, responses and draft P802.11g/D6.1 are
>in the process of being recirculated (January 20, 2003 to February
>6, 2003).
>
>For a full report of the Letter Ballot, see the attached Excel Spreadsheet
>
>* Comments that support the remaining disapprove votes and Working
>Group responses.
>
>The NO comments are contained in the attached spread sheet. There
>are 57 total comments. Of these comments Task Group G counter 29 of
>them and rejected 28 of them. There are many duplicate comments, and
>they have all been included for completeness.
>
>* Remaining schedule for balloting and comment resolution if new no
>votes are received
>
>These will be handled (if necessary) at the March Plenary session
>(March 10-14 2003).
>
>* Additional Information
>
>IEEE 802.11 document 11-02-714 tracks the progress of 802.11g
>voting. The document is attached.
>
>* Clarifying Questions
>
>What didn't IEEE 802.11 ask for conditional approval at the ExCom
>meeting in November 2002?
>
>At the November 2002 meeting, the results of Letter Ballot 50 were
>not back yet, so the requiremetns to introduce the motion to ExCom
>could not be met at that time.
>
>What's the harm in waiting until the March 2003 session to vote on this?
>
>There is enough time between the January 2003 session and the March
>2003 session to do a Working Group Recirculation Ballot and a
>Sponsor Ballot and have the results back by the March 2003 session.
>Doing so will allow IEEE 802.11g to make quick progress. Waiting
>until the March 2003 session may delay IEEE 802.11g at least two
>months.
>
>
>Attachment converted: TiDrive:802.11g-NO-Comments.xls (XLS4/XCEL) (0014F1CD)
>Attachment converted: TiDrive:11-02-714r4-G-TGg_Balloting_His
>(XLS4/XCEL) (0014F1CE)
>Attachment converted: TiDrive:11-02-714r4-G-TGg_Balloting_H 1
>(XLS4/XCEL) (0014F1CF)