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
Roger,

Thank you for taking the time to understand the issues, and the timing we are leaving ourselves during this process. It was particularly correct that you independently confirmed our events, indeed they should help to answer Pat's concern I believe.

With regards to the extract in the WG minutes:

"There is one other discrepancy that confuses me. Namely, Stuart
reported the 802.11 had passed a motion "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." That's an inherently self-contradictory motion, since it sets
the ballot duration at both 15 days and 17 days."

This can best be answered by stating the text portion was from the unapproved minutes in rough format as previously stated, and implied a period for the 15-day WG recirc to occur and should have read ending February 4. The minutes will be corrected and approved in the normal way.

The WG LB is currently running as you stated and to answer the following:

"However, the recirc, as it is being conducted, seems to
close on February 4 at 11:59pm EST. That date is mentioned on the
802.11 web site's "Ongoing Ballots" table and on the balloting form
itself."

Therefore, the correct period is "January 20 to February 4 and meets the 15-day LMSC minimum" . This is publicly stated on the web site and to all members via the 802.11 reflector as initiated in the cover letter and text at the start of the ballot.

With this I encourage all members to vote on the procedural motion at hand.

Thank you Roger and all SEC members for your consideration of this issue.

If I can answer further questions please do not hesitate to ask.

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









"Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>

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

01/29/2003 08:41

       
        To:        stds-802-sec@ieee.org
        cc:        shoemake@ti.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:        





Pat made some excellent points about the number of steps required
between the close of the recirc and the opening of the sponsor
ballot. I started counting the hours to see how much time was being
allowed.

I was surprised to find that there is considerably more time than the
SEC was told. That's because there is an apparent typo in the SEC
motion. The motion says that the recirc runs from January 20 to
February 6. However, the recirc, as it is being conducted, seems to
close on February 4 at 11:59pm EST. That date is mentioned on the
802.11 web site's "Ongoing Ballots" table and on the balloting form
itself.

January 20 to February 4 meets the 15-day LMSC minimum. It also gives
the WG almost three days to study the comments, report to the SEC,
and get the sponsor ballot rolling. This is feasible. It's certainly
a lot more time than what we thought. In general, this discovery
makes me feel much more positive about one of the stickiest aspects
of the motion.

There is one other discrepancy that confuses me. Namely, Stuart
reported the 802.11 had passed a motion "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." That's an inherently self-contradictory motion, since it sets
the ballot duration at both 15 days and 17 days.

On the whole, I find that coming to grips with this motion is taking
a lot of time.

Roger


At 6:23 PM -0700 03/01/27, pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
>You aren't answering the question I asked. (Also, "why not March?"
>was answered in the material accompanying the original motion and,
>even if it hadn't been, the answer is fairly obvious.)
>
>The question I asked was why do a conditional ballot. Once one
>already has to do an email ballot, then one can do a ballot to
>forward after the recirculation has closed and it doesn't need to be
>conditional.
>
>A careful look at the material Stuart sent lead me to the conclusion
>that the conditional approval is being requested because the plan is
>to start the sponsor ballot less than 24 hours after the
>recirculation closes.
>
>Recirculation ends February 6 (not clear what time of day will be
>used for the close.) 30-day sponsor ballot is scheduled to start Feb
>7 (presumably during the East Coast business day since the IEEE
>office initiates the ballot).
>
>It seems likely that the schedule relies on sending the sponsor
>ballot package to the IEEE office before the receirculation closes.
>
>The schedule appears to assume that there will be minimal new
>comments because it doesn't allow any significant time for new
>comments to be read, for the chair to seek technical input on any
>new comments, for the chair to classify as valid or invalid new
>disapprove comments and for working with a voter to change a
>disapprove to approve.
>
>Furthermore, it looks like the spoonsor ballot will be started
>before the SEC sees the report on the recirculation ballot results.
>
>Pat
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matthew Shoemake [mailto:shoemake@ti.com]
>Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 4:35 PM
>To: pat_thaler@agilent.com
>Cc: stuart@ok-brit.com; r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize
>condition al forwarding of P802.11g/D6.1 to Sponsor Ballot
>
>
>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)
>>