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

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

Title: Message

Paul, 

I vote approve. 

/ 
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
_______________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich 
[mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net] 
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 11:48 
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 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:
<?/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>