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

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

Title: Message
Mark and Bob (Grow),

                Per my message below, I agree with you Bob that claims of compliance
should be a secondary issue.  The main issue is whether or not 802.11g
has followed proper procedure.  The default position of this body
should be to move standards along as quickly as possible as long as
proper procedures have been followed.  The 802.11g Task Group has
resolved comments for over one year to a point that they have a 97%
approval percentage and a 96% return rate.  Both of these percentages
are very high.  The IEEE 802.11 Working Group has no control over these
claims of compliance.  We do have control over the quality of our
draft, and I encourage all members to judge this work based on its own
merit.

                The "enormous pressure" that I mentioned before, is a positive sign
for IEEE 802 standards, and simply indicates that there is much market
demand for our work.  It is a nice side benefit that progression of
this amendment will indeed allow for accountability, as you Mark point out.

Respectfully,

Stuart J. Kerry

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Grow, Bob" <bob.grow@intel.com>
> Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003  3:16:16  PM US/Central
> To: "Mark Klerer" <M.Klerer@flarion.com>, <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> Cc: "Matthew Shoemake" <shoemake@ti.com>
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize
> condition al  forwarding of P802.11g/D6.1 to Sponsor Ballot
>
> Mark:
>
> Inappropriate claims of compliance is one of the worst
> rationalizations I have heard for progressing a standard.
>
> --Bob Grow
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Klerer [mailto:M.Klerer@flarion.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 6:53 AM
> To: 'stuart@ok-brit.com'; 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Cc: 'Matthew Shoemake'
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize
> condition al forwarding of P802.11g/D6.1 to Sponsor Ballot
>
>
>
> I would back Stuart in this effort. I believe I have already seen
> products
> that claim compliance with 11g and it would nice to actually have an
> amendment out there to which these products could be held accountable.
>
> Mark Klerer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stuart J. Kerry [mailto:stuart@ok-brit.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 6:04 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)
>

_______________________________

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
_______________________________









"Grow, Bob" <bob.grow@intel.com>

Sent by:
owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org

01/27/2003 13:16

       
        To:        "Mark Klerer" <M.Klerer@flarion.com>
<stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
        cc:        "Matthew Shoemake" <shoemake@ti.com>
(bcc: Stuart Kerry/SVL/SC/PHILIPS)
        Subject:        RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize condition al  forwarding of P802.11g/D6.1 to Sponsor Ballot

        Classification:        





Mark:

Inappropriate claims of compliance is one of the worst rationalizations I have heard for progressing a standard.

--Bob Grow

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Klerer [mailto:M.Klerer@flarion.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 6:53 AM
To: 'stuart@ok-brit.com'; 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Cc: 'Matthew Shoemake'
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize
condition al forwarding of P802.11g/D6.1 to Sponsor Ballot



I would back Stuart in this effort. I believe I have already seen products
that claim compliance with 11g and it would nice to actually have an
amendment out there to which these products could be held accountable.

Mark Klerer

-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart J. Kerry [mailto:stuart@ok-brit.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 6:04 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)