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

FW: [802SEC] Further Info re. 802.11g to Sponsor Ballot




Procedure 10, Item 7:

"The Working Group Chair shall immediately report the results of the 
ballot to the SEC including: the date the ballot closed, vote tally 
and comments associated with any remaing disapproves (valid and 
invalid), the Working Group responses and the rationale for ruling 
any vote invalid."


At 9:32 AM -0800 03/02/06, Bob O'Hara wrote:
>Stuart,
>
>This did not answer my question.  I did not ask if any new VALID 
>disapprove comments were received.  I asked if ANY new comments were 
>received and how they were disposed of.  This is a very important 
>distinction.
>
>  -Bob
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: stuart.kerry@philips.com [mailto:stuart.kerry@philips.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 9:30 AM
>To: Bob O'Hara
>Cc: shoemake@ti.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] Further Info re. 802.11g to Sponsor Ballot
>
>
>Bob,
>
>                 "As a results of the recirculation ballot, we have 
>NO new disapprove
>votes.  There are also NO new valid disapprove comments".
>
>As reliability informed by the TGG Chairperson.
>
>The original email I sent to the SEC last night had the Excel 
>spreadsheet attached.
>
>Hopefully this helps.
>
>/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
>_______________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"Bob O'Hara" <bob@airespace.com>
>
>02/06/2003 09:17
>
>        
>         To:        Stuart Kerry/SVL/SC/PHILIPS@AMEC
><stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
>         cc:        <shoemake@ti.com>
>         Subject:        RE: [802SEC] Further Info re. 802.11g to 
>Sponsor Ballot
>
>         Classification:        
>
>
>
>
>Stuart,
>
>Were any new technical comments received?  How were these disposed 
>of as invalid, if they were?
>
>  -Bob
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: stuart.kerry@philips.com [mailto:stuart.kerry@philips.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 8:30 AM
>To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Cc: shoemake@ti.com
>Subject: [802SEC] Further Info re. 802.11g to Sponsor Ballot
>
>
>Dear SEC members,
>
>                I am writing to provide further clarification on the 
>status of 802.11g
>balloting.
>
>                The recirculation of Draft 6.1 closed on Tuesday, 
>February 4, 2003.  
>Note that there was an error in the e-mail below, where this date was
>incorrectly stated.
>
>                As a results of the recirculation ballot, we have NO 
>new disapprove
>votes.  There are also NO new valid disapprove comments.
>
>                The results of the original balloting (Draft 5.0) and
the
>recirculation ballot (Draft 6.1) are as follows:
>
>                                 Draft: 
>5.0
>                                 Closed: 
>1/8/03
>                                 Voting Pool: 
>321
>                                 Ballots returned: 
> 308    96.0%
>                                 Affirmative: 
>256    88.3%
>                                 Negative: 
> 34       11.7%
>                                 Abstentions: 
>18
>
>                The results of the recirculation are as follows:
>
>                                 Draft: 
>6.1
>                                 Closed: 
>2/4/03
>                                 Voting Pool: 
>321
>                                 Ballots returned: 
> 310    96.6%
>                                 Affirmative: 
>285    97.6%
>                                 Negative: 
>7       2.4%
>                                 Abstentions:                 18
>                
>                Of the seven negative votes, six of them are carried 
>forward due to
>lack of response (multiple attempts have been made).  One of the 
>seven is a reaffirmed negative vote from
>Carl Temme, who indicated that he wanted to see the draft move to
>Sponsor Ballot despite his NO vote.  There were 27 voters that changed
>there vote from negative to affirmative during the recirculation.
>
>                No technical changes have been made to Draft 6.1. 
> The IEEE editorial
>staff has requested approximately two editorial changes such as making
>sure the footer of the document has the most up-to-date copyright
>language.  These changes are editorial in nature only, and the 802.11g
>editor has made these changes, updated the draft to Draft 6.2 and
>provided this draft to the IEEE SA staff.
>
>                We plan to forward Draft 6.2 to Sponsor ballot, as 
>all conditions of
>Procedure 10 have been met.  The IEEE SA staff intends to issue the
>802.11g Sponsor Ballot today, Thursday, February 6, 2003.
>
>Best regards,
>Stuart J. Kerry
>
>On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 10:31  PM, stuart.kerry@philips.com
>wrote:
>
>>
>>  Dear SEC members:
>>
>>  This message is intended to confirm we have met all the requirements
of
>>  LMSC Procedure 10 for forwarding of IEEE 802.11g Draft 6.1 to
Sponsor
>>  Ballot.
>>
>>  A. All conditions (1-6) of Procedure 10 have been met.
>>
>>  B. In reference to Procedure 10 Condition 7 which states, "The
Working
>>  Group
>>  Chair shall immediately report the results of the ballot to the SEC
>>  including: the date the ballot closed, vote tally and comments
>>  associated
>>  with any remaining disapproves (valid and invalid), the Working
Group
>>  responses
>>  and the rationale for ruling any vote invalid." The following
>>  information applies:
>>
>>  The recirculation of Draft 6.1 of IEEE 802.11g closed on February 7,
>>  2003.  The vote tall was as follows:
>>
>>  Voting Pool: 321
>>  Ballots returned: 310    96.6%
>>  Affirmative: 285    97.6%
>>  Negative: 7       2.4%
>>  Abstentions: 18
>>
>>  C. A spreadsheet is attached that contains the remaining
>>  disapproves and the Working Group response.
>>
>>
>>
>>  It is the intention of the WG and the IEEE staff to start the IEEE
>>  Sponsor Ballot on February 6th, 2003 with a 30 day window closing
>>  March 8th, 2003 as approved under the recent SEC motion for 802.11g
>>  Conditional Approval to Forward to Sponsor Ballot.
>>
>>  Best regards,
>>  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
>>  _______________________________
>>
>>  <802.11g-NO-Comments-SEC Proc 10 Condition.xls>
>_______________________________
>
>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
>_______________________________