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

["Bob O'Hara" <bob@airespace.com>]

Forwarded for Matthew Shoemake.

 -Bob
 

-----Original Message-----
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 18:35:15 -0600
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize
condition al  forwarding of P802.11g/D6.1 to Sponsor Ballot
Cc: stuart@ok-brit.com, r.b.marks@ieee.org, stds-802-sec@ieee.org
To: pat_thaler@agilent.com
From: Matthew Shoemake <shoemake@ti.com>

Pat,

	This is a simple one, so I will jump right in.  I am glad you
asked, 
because if it is not clear to one, it is likely not clear to many.

	The reason we have asked for this consideration at this point in
time 
rather than waiting until March 2003 is all about schedule.  If we 
forward the draft to Sponsor before the March session, we can have 
comments back before March.  When we map out our schedule, we can get 
up to three Sponsor Recirculations in before the June 2003 Standard 
Board meeting, but if we have to wait until after the March session to 
issue the Sponsor Ballot, we will be able to get two recirculations in 
at best and most likely only one.  This puts us at significant risk of 
slipping to the September 2003 Standards Board meeting for final 
approval.  If it made no difference in our schedule, we would not have 
requested this e-mail ballot.

	So bottom line, it is all about moving the standards process
forward 
within the rules and without avoidable delay, as we are all obligated 
to do.

Best regards,
Matthew

On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 04:07  PM, pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:

> Stuart,
>
> I can understand why you don't want to wait to March to forward to 
> Sponsor ballot. What I don't understand is why this should be done 
> with a conditional approval. Why not wait until the recirculation in 
> 802.11 has completed and then do an email unconditional vote to 
> forward to sponsor ballot?
>
> Regards,
> Pat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stuart J. Kerry [mailto:stuart@ok-brit.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 3:04 PM
> To: 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Cc: 'Matthew Shoemake'
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize
> conditional forwarding of P802.11g/D6.1 to Sponsor Ballot
>
>
>
> Roger,
>
> I believe that you observation may be indeed correct in the past. But
I
> feel that we should have some degree of flexibility here, with regards
> to the enormous pressure that the 802.11 standard and the amendments
is
> having applied to it in the commercial market place, especially in
this
> period of economic downturn. I am fully aware that this should not
> influence the IEEE/SA process of the end product.
>
> This said, WE WILL NOT allow a sub-standard poor quality amendment out
> of 802.11 or indeed the recognized IEEE process before it is ready. I
> have clarified this with my WG and TG, and have been assured, and
> verified myself that this amendment is ready to go. Careful proven
> process has taken place with the 802.11g amendment.
>
> 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: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Roger B.
> Marks
> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 13:25
> To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize
> conditional 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)
>