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

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

Matt,

I don't think you understood Pat's question. She wasn't contrasting 
your motion to the alternative of waiting until the March meeting for 
SEC approval. Instead, she was contrasting your motion to the 
alternative of waiting until your WG ballot is done and then 
requesting an email SEC motion to forward.

Let me take a stab at answering Pat's question. Your WG recirc closes 
on February 6. If you were to open Sponsor Ballot the next day, it 
would close before the March Plenary. If, instead, you had to first 
run an SEC email ballot beginning February 7, you wouldn't be able to 
close your Sponsor Ballot in time for your March meeting. So the 
purpose of this conditional approval exercise is to let the SEC 
decision run in parallel with the recirc and thereby get you into a 
position to make better use of your March meeting. Right?

I can sympathize with this scheduling problem. However, the current 
scenario is a very risky one. For one thing, the SEC is cautious 
about conditional approvals to forward, and it is cautious about 
email approvals to forward. When you put them together, you face a 
challenge.

Secondly, as you fully understand, you are at great risk of getting 
hit with ballot input that fails to meet the Procedure 10 conditions.

Thirdly, you face the risk that the Balloting Center can't open the 
ballot on one day's notice. You can try to manage this risk by 
communicating with them beforehand.

 From my personal point of view, the primary issue with an email 
conditional approval is that it takes a lot of time and attention 
because there are a lot more comments kicking around than there would 
be at the end of the ballot; also, some of those comments are a 
little more unsettled than they'll eventually be. As much as I wish 
that 802.11 had managed its schedule to avoid this situation, I 
appreciate the schedule situation you are facing. I'll make the 
effort to take a look at the material and evaluate it.

Roger


At 6:35 PM -0600 03/01/27, Matthew Shoemake wrote:
>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)