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

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

I also approve.

Regards,
Tony

At 17:00 29/01/2003 -0800, Bob O'Hara wrote:

>I vote to approve this motion.
>
>  -Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
>Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 8:48 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
>
>
>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.

Regards,
Tony