Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

FW: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize conditional forwarding of P802.11g/D6.1 to Sponsor Ballot

Title: Message
Bob (O'Hara),

In response to your inquiry, I have taken excerpts from the IEEE
802.11 Working Group interim meeting in January 2003.  These minutes are
unproved.  The working group passed three TGg motions that are pertinent to
this SEC ballot.  A motion was passed to issue a 15-day recirculation
ballot on Draft 6.1.

Move to request a 15-day Working Group recirculation ballot on
Draft 6.1 of IEEE 802.11g with an opening date of January 20, 2003 and
a closing date of February 6, 2003.

Mover: Matthew Shoemake on behalf of TGg

Discussion:
When was this on the server? Last Night 7:00PM. The chair
states that there was a witness that affirms it went on at 7:00 Session
Time.

Vote: Passes 105: 0 : 0

This motion was followed by a motion to request Procedure 10 approval
for Draft 6.1.

Move to request an 802 ExCom e-mail ballot on the question of
conditional approval to forward to sponsor ballot (Procedure 10) Draft
6.1 of IEEE 802.11g.

Mover: Matthew Shoemake on behalf of TGg

Discussion:
Do you expect no changes from recirculation? This is
according to Procedure 10. It requires the WG chair do certain things
and meet certain requirements. Regarding rejecting comments, there is a
motion to reject comments if they meet the procedure 10 requirements.
There are strict requirements for what these comments must be in
procedure 10.

The WG chair notes that this procedure is dependent on the SEC
voting on it. If it fails the vote, it does not go forward.

Vote: Passes 105 : 1 : 0

This motion was followed by a motion that allows both processing of
comments on the recirculation ballot and forwarding of Draft 6.1 to
Sponsor ballot depending on the outcome of the recirculation ballot  
and the SEC vote.

Whereas IEEE 802.11 Task Group G would like to have Sponsor Ballot
comments to resolve at its March 10-14, 2003 session…

Contingent upon obtaining Procedure 10 approval for 802.11g and
contingent upon execution of the 15-day recirculation ballot on Draft
6.1 and contingent upon meeting all the requirements of Procedure 10,
reject all comments submitted on the 15-day       recirculation ballot
and request a 30-day Sponsor Ballot on 802.11g Draft 6.1 with a
targeted starting date of February 7, 2003.

Mover: Matthew Shoemake on behalf of TGg

Discussion:
The TGg chair notes that rejecting all comments does not reject
them out of hand. There are strict requirement on what comments can be
rejected. New technical issues in comments would invalidate the
procedure 10. We will not reject comments that do not meet the
requirements of procedure 10.  If new technical issues come up, you
can't carry out this procedure. How do you know if new technical issues
come up? It is up to the WG chair to determine this. The WG chair must
notify the SEC in that case.

The WG chair affirms that this is correct and reviews the specific
conditions (verbally). The procedure is being followed correctly.
It would have been better to see procedure 10 on the screen. (This was
Review during the TGg meeting and was added to the minutes of the WG)

Vote: Passes 97 : 0 : 6

To simplify your consideration of the motion, I have listed the
conditions that must be fulfilled after Procedure 10 approval is given
and before the draft can be forwarded.  The following text is taken
directly from Procedure 10.

Conditions:
1. The ballot cover letter shall include the following statement:
This ballot is being conducted under the procedure for conditional
approval of the IEEE 802 Operating Rules (add the exact reference and
the current IEEE 802 Operating Rule URL here).

2. Confirmation ballot is completed
ballot and resolution should occur in accordance with the schedule
presented at the time of conditional approval.

3. After resolution of the confirmation ballot is completed, the
approval percentage is at least 75% and there are no new DISAPPROVE
votes.

4. No technical changes, as determined by the Working Group Chair,
were made as a result of the confirmation ballot.

5. No new valid DISAPPROVE comments on new issues that are not
resolved to the satisfaction of the submitter from existing DISAPPROVE
voters.

6. If the Working Group Chair determines that there is a new invalid
DISAPPROVE comment or vote, the Working Group Chair shall promptly
provide details to the SEC.

7. The Working Group Chair shall immediately report the results of
the ballot to the SEC including: the date the ballot closed, vote tally
and comments associated with any remaining disapproves (valid and
invalid), the Working Group responses and the rationale for ruling any
vote invalid.

Respectfully,

Stuart J. Kerry
               
_______________________________

Stuart J. Kerry
Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG

Philips Semiconductors, Inc.
1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
United States of America.

Ph  : +1 (408) 474-7356
Fax: +1 (408) 474-7247
Cell: +1 (408) 348-3171
eMail: stuart.kerry@philips.com
_______________________________









Stuart Kerry

01/27/2003 13:28

       
        To:        stds-802-sec@ieee.org
p.nikolich@ieee.org
bob@bstormnetworks.com
        cc:        shoemake@ti.com
mjsherman@att.com
(bcc: Stuart Kerry/SVL/SC/PHILIPS)
        Subject:        RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize conditional  forwarding of P802.11g/D6.1 to Sponsor Ballot

        Classification:        Unclassified



Bob,
 
Thank you for your viewpoint and observations.
 
I am currently reviewing the WG minutes and as they are a matter of public record of our sessions, I will of course make them available to all members to assist the SEC in their deliberations on this matter.
 
Please await the relevant portions of the minutes which I will email in a few hours time.
 
Respectfully,
 
Stuart
 

_______________________________

Stuart J. Kerry
Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG

Philips Semiconductors, Inc.
1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
United States of America.

Ph  : +1 (408) 474-7356
Fax : +1 (408) 474-5343
Cell: +1 (408) 348-3171
eMail: stuart.kerry@philips.com
_______________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob O'Hara [mailto:bob@bstormnetworks.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 11:58
To: Paul Nikolich; IEEE802
Cc: Matthew Sherman; stuart@ok-brit.com; Matthew B. Shoemake
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize conditional forwarding of P802.11g/D6.1 to Sponsor Ballot
Importance: High

Stuart,
 
Would you please post the actual wording of the motion, as passed in the closing plenary session of the 802.11 January 2003 meeting?  I believe that there were several conditional statements in that motion that indicated how the task group would handle the results of the currently progressing WG recirculation ballot.  These statements may have a bearing on how the present motion is perceived.

 -Bob
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 8:48 AM
To: IEEE802
Cc: Matthew Sherman; stuart@ok-brit.com; Matthew B. Shoemake
Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize conditional forwarding of P802.11g/D6.1 to Sponsor Ballot

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
<?fontfamily><?param Arial><?smaller>
 
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 P802sp;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:<?/smaller><?/fontfamily>

<?fontfamily><?param Arial><?smaller>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.<?/smaller><?/fontfamily>