RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC MOTION +++ Motion to Forward 15.2 D9 to RevCom
I think I already voted on this, but in case
I didn't ... APPROVE.
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 5:03 PM
> To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC MOTION +++ Motion to Forward 15.2 D9 to
> RevCom
>
>
>
> Approve.
>
> Roger
>
> At 6:20 PM -0400 03/04/17, Paul Nikolich wrote:
> >Dear SEC,
> >
> >This is a 14 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the
> >below SEC motion to authorize forwarding 802.15.2 D9 to RevCom.
> >Moved by Bob Heile, Seconded by Stuart Kerry
> >
> >The email ballot opens on Thursday April 17, 2003 6:30PM EDT and
> >closes Thursday May 1, 2003 6:30PM EDT.
> >
> >Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector with a CC directly
> >to me (<mailto:p.nikolich@ieee.org>p.nikolich@ieee.org).
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >--Paul Nikolich
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Bob Heile" <<mailto:bheile@ieee.org>bheile@ieee.org>
> >To: <<mailto:p.nikolich@ieee.org>p.nikolich@ieee.org>
> >Cc: <<mailto:stuart@ok-brit.com>stuart@ok-brit.com>;
> ><<mailto:Stuart.Kerry@philips.com>Stuart.Kerry@philips.com>;
> ><<mailto:shell@symbol.com>shell@symbol.com>;
> ><<mailto:david.cypher@nist.gov>david.cypher@nist.gov>; "bob Heile"
> ><<mailto:bheile@ieee.org>bheile@ieee.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 7:08 AM
> >Subject: Move to Forward 15.2 D9 to RevCom
> >
> >
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> I would like to start a 10 day SEC email Letter Ballot.
> >>
> >> Having successfully completed Sponsor Ballot, Move to
> Forward 802.15.2
> >> Draft 9 to RevCom.
> >>
> >> Supporting documentation has been issued in previous
> emails to the SEC.
> >>
> >> moved: Bob Heile
> >> second: Stuart Kerry
> >>
> >>
> >> Bob Heile, Ph.D
> >> Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal
> Area Networks
> >> Chair, ZigBee Alliance
> >> 11 Louis Road
> >> Attleboro, MA 02703 USA
> >> Phone: 508-222-1393
> >> Mobile: 781-929-4832
> >> Fax: 508-222-0515
> >> email: <mailto:bheile@ieee.org>bheile@ieee.org
> >>
> >
> >Supporting Documentation:
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Bob Heile
> >To: <mailto:stds-802-sec@ieee.org>stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> >Cc: <mailto:shell@symbol.com>shell@symbol.com ;
> ><mailto:david.cypher@nist.gov>david.cypher@nist.gov
> >Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 6:10 PM
> >Subject: [802SEC] Report on 15.2 Recirculation Ballot
> >
> >
> >The 15.2 Recirculation ballot closed on April 15. The results were:
> >
> >1. This ballot has met the 75% returned ballot requirement.
> >66 eligible people in this ballot group.
> >48 affirmative votes
> >1 negative votes with comments
> >0 negative votes without comments
> >7 abstention votes
> >=====
> >56 votes received = 84% returned
> >12% abstention
> >2. The 75% affirmation requirement is being met.
> >48 affirmative votes
> >1 negative votes with comments
> >=====
> >49 votes = 97% affirmative
> >
> >We received one new affirmative and one of the no voters
> changed their vote
> >to affirmative. The one remaining no vote was from the
> previous ballot and
> >was ruled then as not a valid technical comment and made part of the
> >recirculation. (copy below) There has been no response from
> that voter.
> >
> >Given that there are no new no votes and no changes required
> to the draft,
> >I will be making a motion to the SEC, via a 10 day letter ballot, to
> >forward Draft 9 to RevCom in time for the May 2 submission deadline.
> >
> >
> >Comment received on Draft 8 and recirculated with Draft 9:
> >
> >CommenterName CommentType CommentID Clause Subclause Page Line
> >O'Farrell, Timothy T 8 D 89
> >Comment
> >The source code of Appendix D is provided without a flow
> diagram schematic.
> >To enhance understanding and accessibility of the program
> material a flow
> >diagram schematic is required.
> >SuggestedRemedy
> >Include a flow diagram schematic of the source code
> presented in Appendix D.
> >Response
> >REJECT.
> >The BRC does not know of any requirements to supply a flow
> diagram for code,
> >therefore one will not be created and included. BRC does not
> consider this a
> >technical comment on the draft, since it relates to a
> informative annex.
>