RE: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of the 802.11g draft to RevCom
Stuart,
Was there an error in the following statement?:
> >>> III. If comments were submitted with Disapprove ballots in
> >>> the last recirculation, and not withdrawn, were the comments
> >>> on material that had changed from the previously balloted
> >>> draft?
> >>>
> >> We did have one comment on a section that had not changed,
> but it was
>
> >> withdrawn by the commenter and was therefore not included in the
> >> comment list.
It seems contradictory to the other statements as it is. Other statements say that comments were repeats of previous comments, but the statement above says that only one comment was on a section that had not changed which means the other comments were on sections that had changed.
Did Matt mean to say that there was one comment on a section that had changed and it was withdrawn?
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [mailto:carlstevenson@agere.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 5:05 PM
To: 'Bob O'Hara'; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of
the 802.11g draft to RevCom
Dear SEC,
With all due respect to Dr. Gilb (who I like and respect
considerably), I believe that, based on the responses
from the Chair of TGg, the process has been followed in
scrupulous detail.
I would also note, again with all due respect to Dr.
Gilb, that he was one of the last "hold-outs" on the
802.15.1 standard. I respect his zealous defense of
his views, but when they are in the extreme minority,
I do not belive that they should for a basis for holding
up progress on the issuance of a standard that has
overwhelming consensus support.
Regards,
Carl R. Stevenson
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
610-965-8799 (home office)
610-712-3217 (fax mailbox)
610-570-6168 (cellphone)
Short Message Service: 6105706168@voicestream.net
carl.stevenson@ieee.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob O'Hara [mailto:bob@airespace.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 6:35 PM
> To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of
> the 802.11g draft to RevCom
>
>
>
> ate: Fri, 30 May 2003 22:14:38 -0500
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of
> the 802.11g draft to RevCom
> Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org,
> "'Stuart.Kerry@philips.com'" <Stuart.Kerry@philips.com>,
> john.terry@nokia.com
> To: Howard Frazier <millardo@dominetsystems.com>,
> "Bob O'Hara" <bob@airespace.com>
> From: "Matthew B. Shoemake" <shoemake@ti.com>
>
>
>
> Bob,
>
> Please forward my comments to the SEC reflector.
>
> Howard and SEC members,
>
> More comments below.
>
> On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 06:54 PM, Howard Frazier wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The IEEE SASB rules do not allow a WG to dismiss a comment
> > from a disapproving balloter on the basis that it is purely
> > editorial, particularly when the balloter has explicitly
> > identified the comment as one of the bases for their disapproval.
> > The correct procedure is to write a rebuttal to the comment,
> > and recirculate the comment to the balloting group. You can't
> > say "In our opinion, the comment is editorial, and thus not
> > worthy of recirculation." You can write a rebuttal to that
> > effect, and recirculate it, but the balloting group, not the
> > WG or the BRC, gets to decide whether the issue is important or
> > not. If the balloting group agrees with the disapproving
> > balloter, then they get to change their votes to disapprove.
> > If they disagree with the disapproving balloter, they can let
> > their approval votes stand.
> >
>
> On every sponsor recirculation of 802.11g, every comment was
> recirculated to the voting pool. We circulated two sets in
> each case.
> One set was the set from disapprove voters, and the other was the
> complete set. We did this because the set of comments is so large.
> There has not been a recirculation where all comments where not
> available for review. This includes technical and editorial. If you
> would like to see a list of all of the comments that were
> circulated, I
> would be happy to provide those, but the SEC and REVCOM seem
> to prefer
> to see a truncated list for which there is no clear definition in the
> rules, i.e. I get different answers from different committee
> members on
> how to form the truncated list. I would be happy to provide you the
> complete list of *all* comments that the Sponsor Balloters
> saw, if you
> so choose.
>
> > If the committee rules are in conflict with the SA rules in this
> > regard, then the committee's rules need to be reviewed and revised.
> >
> > As to the truncated comments, it would appear that there is
> > a deficiency in the comment collection process that is being
> > used by the committee, since the process allows comments to
> > be corrupted between the balloter and the committee. Was any
> > attempt made to obtain complete comments from the balloter?
>
> There is no deficiency in our process. The error was on the part of
> the voter himself. This is a Microsoft Excel copy and paste
> problem.
> I would be happy to send you the e-mail where Mr. Gilb
> acknowledges the
> error on his part. Please let me know if you would like to see it.
> The committee did notify Mr. Gilb that his comments were
> truncated. We
> obtained an update set from him, and our responses were
> produced based
> on the full comment. However, the process should not be delayed
> because a single voter made a cut and paste error himself in
> Microsoft
> Excel. Task Group G has done the best it can to process the comments
> given the voters error.
>
> >
> > The answer provided to my question III is not very encouraging.
> > From the answer, it appears that all of the comments associated
> > with Disapprove ballots that were not withdrawn were in fact made
> > on material that HAD changed in the recirculated draft. If this
> > is the case, then the comments require recirculation.
>
> With all due respect, if this is our process, our process is broken.
> If all that has to be done to force a recirculation is for a single
> member to put in an editorial comment on a section that has
> change and
> vote disapprove, then an IEEE draft standard or amendment can be
> delayed indefinitely. This is exactly the situation we are in. We
> have one voter (Gilb) that reiterated his technical comments
> that were
> already recirculated, and we have one voter (Moreton) that maintained
> his disapprove vote based on previous technical comments but did also
> put in some new editorial comments. These editorial comments should
> not trigger a recirculation. You should also take into consideration
> that the voter that submitted these editorial comments (Moreton)
> specifically withdrew his new technical comments to allow the
> draft to
> move forward with out additional recirculation. If he had known that
> his editorial comments also would trigger a recirculation, I
> venture to
> guess that he may have withdrawn his editorial comments also.
> I would
> also like to make you aware that Mr. Moreton expressed is frustration
> to me in a private conversation that under our rules he could not put
> in a minority view without causing extended delay.
>
> The IEEE already comes under fire for taking so long to get standards
> completed. I have received literally dozens of inquires from 802.11
> members over the last few months about the problem in the rules that
> can allow indefinite delay by a single voter. This is a problem not
> only for 802.11g and 802.11 but for other 802 working groups. I
> encourage you as SEC members to take a pragmatic approach and to vote
> YES on this motion. If you vote NO based on the fact that an
> editorial
> comment forces a recirculation, then we have a serious
> problem with our
> rules.
>
> The decision lies in your hands. Stuart Kerry, John Terry (802.11g
> vice chair) and I would be more than happy to try to address any
> questions that any of you have regarding 802.11g. I am available by
> e-mail (shoemake@ti.com) and by phone (214-226-4179).
>
> Best regards,
> Matthew
>
> Matthew B. Shoemake, Ph.D. (m.b.shoemake@ieee.org)
> Phone: 214-480-2344 Fax: 972-761-5963
> IEEE 802.11 Task Group G Chairperson
> IEEE 802.11 Task Group N Chairperson Elect
>
> >
> > Howard
> >
> > Bob O'Hara wrote:
> >
> >> I am forwarding this to the SEC reflector for Matthew Shoemake,
> 802.11
> >> TGg Chair.
> >> -Bob
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Matthew B. Shoemake [mailto:shoemake@ti.com] Sent:
> Friday, May
> >> 30, 2003 1:03 PM
> >> To: Bob O'Hara
> >> Cc: 'Stuart.Kerry@philips.com'; john.terry@nokia.com
> >> Subject: Re: FW: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize
> >> Forwarding
> >> of the 802.11g draft to RevCom
> >> Bob,
> >> Thank you for forwarding Howard's comments. My responses are
> >> below. Please forward to the SEC.
> >> Regards,
> >> Matthew
> >> Howard and other SEC members,
> >> Please find my comments below.
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:millardo@dominetsystems.com]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 11:57 PM
> >>> To: IEEE802
> >>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize
> Forwarding
> >>> of
> >>> the 802.11g draft to RevCom
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dear Members of the SEC,
> >>>
> >>> Bob's point number 2 below, if correct, would
> >>> be a near certain basis for disapproval at RevCom.
> >>>
> >>> Disapproval is also near certain if any comments
> >>> associated with Disapprove ballots were received during
> >>> the last recirculation. In fact, this is sufficient cause
> >>> for a submittal to be automatically dropped from the RevCom
> >>> agenda when the last recirc closed after the submittal
> >>> deadline, as was the case with this project.
> >>>
> >>> Disapproval would also be near certain if
> >>> the *verbatim* text of the comments and rebuttal were not
> >>> recirculated. An Excel spreadsheet of the comments received
> >>> from Gilb on the last recirc has been distributed to the members
> >>> of RevCom. In this spreadsheet it appears that:
> >>>
> >>> A) The comments and proposed changes from Gilb have been
> >>> truncated, probably inadvertently as a result of a formatting
> >>> problem with the spreadsheet.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> These comments were truncated by Gilb and not by the
> committee. We
> >> received them in truncated form.
> >>> B) There are no rebuttals to the comments.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps there is a good explanation for all of this. If so,
> >>> the following questions must be answered:
> >>>
> >>> I. Were ANY comments submitted with Disapprove ballots
> >>> in the last recirculation?
> >>>
> >> The only comments submitted with a disapprove vote came
> from Gilb and
>
> >> Moreton. All of the comments from Moreton were editorial,
> and all of
>
> >> the comments from Gilb where verbatim of old comments he had
> >> submitted.
> >>> II. If comments were submitted with Disapprove ballots
> >>> in the last recirculation, were ALL of them withdrawn by the
> >>> balloter?
> >>>
> >> Actually Moreton and Gilb each submitted new technical
> comments, but
> >> both of them withdrew them so that the process could move
> forward. I
>
> >> would encourage the SEC to take into account the intent of Mr.
> >> Moreton and Mr. Gilb's in with drawing these comments.
> >>> III. If comments were submitted with Disapprove ballots in
> >>> the last recirculation, and not withdrawn, were the comments
> >>> on material that had changed from the previously balloted
> >>> draft?
> >>>
> >> We did have one comment on a section that had not changed,
> but it was
>
> >> withdrawn by the commenter and was therefore not included in the
> >> comment list.
> >>> IV. Were ALL comments submitted with Disapprove ballots, that
> >>> had not been withdrawn, and that were made on material that
> >>> had changed from the previously balloted draft,
> >>> recirculated *verbatim*, along with a rebuttal,
> >>> to the ballot group?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> To the best of our knowledge, this is the case. As a
> result of your
> >> comment, we are double checking this just to make sure out of the
> >> thousands of comments processed, we did not miss one.
> >> On comment number 2 below, the comment in question is clearly
> >> editorial. The committee rules clearly state that it is
> the job of
> >> the chair to properly classify comments as editorial or
> technical.
> >> As a matter of practice, we take as a matter of fact the
> >> classification provided by the commenter, unless challenged by a
> >> member. In the case of Gilb8, a member challenged this as being
> >> technical or editorial. It is my opinion, after analysis,
> that the
> >> comment is clearly editorial. This determination was made
> because,
> >> if we had accepted the comment, there would have been no
> behavioral
> >> change to compliant devices. Task Group G also felt that
> the meaning
>
> >> of the paragraph was clear without the editorial change.
> >> Thanks for your comments, Howard.
> >> Best regards,
> >> Matthew B. Shoemake
> >> IEEE 802.11g Chairperson
> >>> You should expect to receive questions like this from RevCom.
> >>> It would be wise to have answers prepared. The desired
> >>> answers are: I. No, II. Yes, III. No, IV. Yes.
> >>>
> >>> Howard Frazier
> >>> Member, IEEE SASB RevCom
> >>> Vice-Chairman, IEEE SASB
> >>>
> >>> Grow, Bob wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Vote = NO.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> There are substantive procedural lapses in the ballot
> process which
> >>>>
> >>> form
> >>>
> >>>> the basis of my vote. I can't though help but describe some
> >>>> frustrations with the available documentation that increased the
> >>>> time
> >>>> required to review the ballot information and either introduce
> >>>> contradictions and or confusion about the ballot.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It was very difficult to figure out which 802.11g drafts were
> >>>>
> >> balloted
> >>>> at sponsor ballot. (I would give URLs if the web site provided
> >>>> them,
> >>>> but the pull down menus do not update the URL so good luck in
> trying
> >>>>
> >>> to
> >>>
> >>>> replicate my descriptions.) From the pull down menu
> Group Updates
> /
> >>>> Task Groups / G, it appears that the initial sponsor
> ballot was on
> >>>>
> >>> D6.2,
> >>>
> >>>> the first recirculation ballot on D7.1, and the second
> recirculation
> >>>> ballot on D8.1, yet the ballot results (Group Updates / Ballot
> >>>>
> >> Results
> >>> /
> >>>
> >>>> Sponsor Ballots) list the second recirculation ballot on D8.2 as
> >>>> described in the ballot material.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Second frustration. What is with all the comment
> spreadsheets on
> >>>> the
> >>>> 802.11 web site. With limited time, I had to assume that the one
> >>>>
> >> with
> >>>> the latest date was the final comment report for the specific
> >>>> ballot.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Of substantive concern:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. From the second page referenced above, it appears that the
> first
> >>>> recirculation ballot though listed as 15 days was only
> 14 complete
> >>>>
> >>> days
> >>>
> >>>> (14.xxx days) in violation of LMSC sponsor ballot periods.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. After reviewing the comment database provided with
> the motion,
> I
> >>>>
> >>> am
> >>>
> >>>> concerned about the Gilb8 comment on line 20 of the comment
> summary.
> >>>> From the database, I am assuming that the comment was:
> >>>>
> >>>> a. Originally submitted on the initial D6.2 sponsor ballot (the
> >>>>
> >>> Gilb23
> >>>
> >>>> reference).
> >>>>
> >>>> b. Resubmitted on the second sponsor recirculation ballot (D8.2)
> as
> >>>>
> >> a
> >>>> technical comment.
> >>>>
> >>>> c. That the BRC on the second sponsor recirculation ballot
> >>>>
> >>> reclassified
> >>>
> >>>> the comment as editorial.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> While I find the willingness of the committee to perpetuate
> >>>> ambiguity
> >>>>
> >>> in
> >>>
> >>>> the specification with the continued use of both underscore and
> >>>>
> >> hyphen
> >>>> in primitive names disappointing, it is the procedural
> aspects that
> >>>>
> >>> are
> >>>
> >>>> the purview of the SEC. It is appropriate in the
> comment response
> >>>>
> >> for
> >>>> the BRC to respond that the issue is really editorial,
> it isn't the
> >>>> BRC's option to reclassify a comment that was the basis for a
> >>>>
> >> negative
> >>>> vote as being an editorial issue and therefore non-binding.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. I couldn't find answers to some questions related to this
> >>>>
> >> comment:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> a. Why is there no Gilb 23 in the D6.2 comment database? (The
> >>>>
> >>> comment
> >>>
> >>>> database in the motion package indicates it was a "first sponsor
> >>>>
> >>> ballot"
> >>>
> >>>> comment.) I can't evaluate if the comment was the same as Gilb23
> if
> >>>>
> >> I
> >>>> can't find it!)
> >>>>
> >>>> b. Did the commenter explicitly accept the
> reclassification of the
> >>>> second recirculation comment (Gilb8)?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 4. Some comments in the motion package provided are resolved as
> >>>> "Counter" with recommended changes to the document. (Moreton 18,
> and
> >>>> 19). Though I am unfamiliar with the term Counter (and
> I couldn't
> >>>>
> >>> find
> >>>
> >>>> it defined on the 802.11 web site), it looks like what
> 802.3 names
> >>>> "Accept in Principle" where the commenter has raised a valid
> problem
> >>>>
> >>> but
> >>>
> >>>> a different remedy is implemented than that recommended by the
> >>>> commenter. (This might be transferable to the
> frustration section
> >>>>
> >> but
> >>>> it is impossible to determine on which ballot these comments were
> >>>>
> >>> entered.)
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --Bob Grow
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 6:32 PM
> >>>> To: IEEE802
> >>>> Subject: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize
> Forwarding of
> >>>>
> >> the
> >>>> 802.11g draft to RevCom
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear SEC members,
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a 15 day SEC email ballot to make a
> determination by an SEC
> >>>> motion to authorize forwarding 802.11g Draft 8.2 to RevCom.
> >>>>
> >>>> Moved by Stuart J. Kerry
> >>>> Seconded by Bob Heile
> >>>>
> >>>> The email ballot opens on Wednesday May 21st, 2003 10PM ET and
> >>>> closes
> >>>> Thursday June 5th, 2003 10PM ET.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector with a CC
> directly
> >>>>
> >>> to
> >>>
> >>>> me (p.nikolich@ieee.org).
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> - Paul Nikolich
> >>>>
> >>>> SUPPORTING INFORMATION / DOCUMENTATION Below:
> >>>>
> >>>> +++++++++
> >>>>
> >>>> LAST SPONSOR BALLOT RESULTS:
> >>>>
> >>>> Ballot: P802.11g/D8.2 2nd IEEE Recirculation Ballot which Closed
> >>>> 2003-05-14, and obtained a 95% approval.
> >>>>
> >>>> This ballot has met the 75% returned ballot requirement.
> >>>> 96 eligible people in this ballot group.
> >>>> 64 affirmative votes
> >>>> 3 negative votes with comments
> >>>> 0 negative votes without comments
> >>>> 10 abstention votes
> >>>> =====
> >>>> 77 votes received = 80% returned
> >>>> 12% abstention
> >>>>
> >>>> The 75% affirmation requirement is being met.
> >>>> 64 affirmative votes
> >>>> 3 negative votes with comments
> >>>> =====
> >>>> 67 votes = 95% affirmative
> >>>>
> >>>> +++++++++
> >>>>
> >>>> RESULTS OF TASK GROUP G AND 802.11 WG MOTIONS at DALLAS 802.11
> >>>>
> >> session
> >>>> (May 2003):
> >>>>
> >>>> Move to Forward IEEE 802.11g Draft 8.2 to the IEEE 802 SEC and to
> >>>>
> >>> RevCom
> >>>
> >>>> for Final Approval
> >>>>
> >>>> Task Group G: 26 / 0 / 0
> >>>> 802.11 WG: 102 / 0 / 2
> >>>>
> >>>> +++++++++
> >>>>
> >>>> SUMMARY OF REMAINING VOTERS ISSUES:
> >>>>
> >>>> Attached is a summary of status of the three "no" voters
> >>>> (O'Farrell, Moreton, Gilb) and the one new "yes" with comments
> voter
> >>>> (Monteban).
> >>>>
> >>>> Tim O'Farrell, Supergold
> >>>>
> >>>> Tim voted NO on the first Sponsor Ballot, i.e.
> Draft 6.1 of
> >>>>
> >>> IEEE
> >>>
> >>>> 802.11g. We have not been able to contact him sense.
> E-mails were
> >>>>
> >>> sent
> >>>
> >>>> on both recirculation ballots requesting his response. At the
> April
> >>>> 2003 session of 802.11g, multiple attempts were made to
> contact Tim
> >>>>
> >> to
> >>>> no avail. On the first recirculation ballot, Tim provided five
> >>>> comments. One comments was editorial, and it was accepted. The
> >>>>
> >> other
> >>>> four comments were technical. Tim had two comments related to
> >>>>
> >>> removing
> >>>
> >>>> optional functionality, which were both rejected. Tim
> also had two
> >>>> comments related to ACR which were both rejected.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Summary for Tim O'Farrell
> >>>> o Voted "No" on first sponsor ballot
> >>>> o Has not voted on last of the recirculation ballots
> >>>> o Attempts at contact have failed
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike Moreton, Synad
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike voted NO WITH COMMENTS on Draft 8.2. All of Mike
> >>>>
> >>> comments
> >>>
> >>>> were editorial. Mike currently maintains his NO vote based on
> >>>> previously circulated comments.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Summary for Mike Moreton
> >>>> o Voted "No" on Draft 8.2 based on previously submitted
> >>>>
> >>> technical
> >>>
> >>>> comments
> >>>> o Submitted no new technical comments on Draft 8.2
> >>>> o Submitted 7 editorial comments
> >>>> o All editorial comments were rejected
> >>>>
> >>>> James Gilb, Appairent
> >>>>
> >>>> James also voted NO WITH COMMENTS on Draft 8.2. All of
> James
> >>>> comments have previously been circulated. James maintains his NO
> >>>>
> >> vote
> >>>> base on previously circulated comments.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Summary for James Gilb
> >>>> o Voted "No" on Draft 8.2
> >>>> o Submitted 14 technical and editorial comments
> on Draft 8.2
> >>>> o None of the technical comments are new
> >>>> o All comments were rejected
> >>>>
> >>>> Leo Monteban, Agere
> >>>>
> >>>> Leo voted YES WITH COMMENTS on Draft 8.2. Leo
> submitted two
> >>>> editorial comments. Both editorial comments were found to be
> >>>> non-substantive by IEEE 802.11 Task Group G, thus both were
> >>>> rejected.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Summary for Leo Monteban
> >>>> o Cast a "Yes" vote with two comments
> >>>> o Both comments were editorial
> >>>> o Both comments were rejected
> >>>>
> >>>> +++++++++
> >>>>
> >>>> All Comment Resolutions are included in Doc#: 11-03-381 rev.7 as
> >>>>
> >>> posted
> >>>
> >>>> to the 802.11 web site, which contains all the comments from the
> >>>> recirculation of Draft 8.2. . A copy of which is attached for you
> >>>> convenience. The document also contains Tim O'Farrell's comment
> >>>> from
> >>>> the first sponsor ballot and Mike Moreton's and James Gilb's
> >>>> comments
> >>>> from the first ballot.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> As there were no new no votes or comments and no
> subsequent change
> >>>>
> >> was
> >>>> made to the 802.11g Draft 8.2, this ballot is concluded and D8.2
> and
> >>>> supporting documentation will be forwarded to RevCom for
> action at
> >>>>
> >> the
> >>>> upcoming meeting in June.
> >>>>
> >>>> / 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
> >>>> _______________________________
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --Apple-Mail-5-881750776
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Type: text/enriched;
> charset=US-ASCII
>
> Bob,
>
>
> Please forward my comments to the SEC reflector.
>
>
> Howard and SEC members,
>
>
> More comments below.
>
>
> On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 06:54 PM, Howard Frazier wrote:
>
>
> <excerpt>
>
>
> The IEEE SASB rules do not allow a WG to dismiss a comment
>
> from a disapproving balloter on the basis that it is purely
>
> editorial, particularly when the balloter has explicitly
>
> identified the comment as one of the bases for their disapproval.
>
> The correct procedure is to write a rebuttal to the comment,
>
> and recirculate the comment to the balloting group. You can't
>
> say "In our opinion, the comment is editorial, and thus not
>
> worthy of recirculation." You can write a rebuttal to that
>
> effect, and recirculate it, but the balloting group, not the
>
> WG or the BRC, gets to decide whether the issue is important or
>
> not. If the balloting group agrees with the disapproving
>
> balloter, then they get to change their votes to disapprove.
>
> If they disagree with the disapproving balloter, they can let
>
> their approval votes stand.
>
>
> </excerpt>
>
> On <underline>every</underline> sponsor recirculation of 802.11g,
> <underline>every</underline> comment was recirculated to the voting
> pool. We circulated two sets in each case. One set was the set from
> disapprove voters, and the other was the complete set. We did this
> because the set of comments is so large. There has not been a
> recirculation where all comments where not available for review. This
> includes technical and editorial. If you would like to see a list of
> all of the comments that were circulated, I would be happy to provide
> those, but the SEC and REVCOM seem to prefer to see a truncated list
> for which there is no clear definition in the rules, i.e. I get
> different answers from different committee members on how to form the
> truncated list. I would be happy to provide you the complete list of
> *all* comments that the Sponsor Balloters saw, if you so choose.
>
>
> <excerpt>If the committee rules are in conflict with the SA rules in
> this
>
> regard, then the committee's rules need to be reviewed and revised.
>
>
> As to the truncated comments, it would appear that there is
>
> a deficiency in the comment collection process that is being
>
> used by the committee, since the process allows comments to
>
> be corrupted between the balloter and the committee. Was any
>
> attempt made to obtain complete comments from the balloter?
>
> </excerpt>
>
> There is no deficiency in our process. The error was on the part of
> the voter himself. This is a Microsoft Excel copy and paste problem.
> I would be happy to send you the e-mail where Mr. Gilb acknowledges
> the error on his part. Please let me know if you would like to see
> it. The committee did notify Mr. Gilb that his comments were
> truncated. We obtained an update set from him, and our responses were
> produced based on the full comment. However, the process should not
> be delayed because a single voter made a cut and paste error himself
> in Microsoft Excel. Task Group G has done the best it can to process
> the comments given the voters error.
>
>
> <excerpt>
>
> The answer provided to my question III is not very encouraging.
>
> From the answer, it appears that all of the comments associated
>
> with Disapprove ballots that were not withdrawn were in fact made
>
> on material that HAD changed in the recirculated draft. If this
>
> is the case, then the comments require recirculation.
>
> </excerpt>
>
> <underline>With all due respect,</underline> if this is our process,
> our process is broken. If all that has to be done to force a
> recirculation is for a single member to put in an editorial comment on
> a section that has change and vote disapprove, then an IEEE draft
> standard or amendment can be delayed indefinitely. This is exactly
> the situation we are in. We have one voter (Gilb) that reiterated his
> technical comments that were already recirculated, and we have one
> voter (Moreton) that maintained his disapprove vote based on previous
> technical comments but did also put in some new editorial comments.
> These editorial comments should not trigger a recirculation. You
> should also take into consideration that the voter that submitted
> these editorial comments (Moreton) specifically withdrew his new
> technical comments to allow the draft to move forward with out
> additional recirculation. If he had known that his editorial comments
> also would trigger a recirculation, I venture to guess that he may
> have withdrawn his editorial comments also. I would also like to make
> you aware that Mr. Moreton expressed is frustration to me in a private
> conversation that under our rules he could not put in a minority view
> without causing extended delay.
>
>
> The IEEE already comes under fire for taking so long to get standards
> completed. I have received literally dozens of inquires from 802.11
> members over the last few months about the problem in the rules that
> can allow indefinite delay by a single voter. This is a problem not
> only for 802.11g and 802.11 but for other 802 working groups. I
> encourage you as SEC members to take a pragmatic approach and to vote
> YES on this motion. If you vote NO based on the fact that an
> editorial comment forces a recirculation, then we have a serious
> problem with our rules.
>
>
> The decision lies in your hands. Stuart Kerry, John Terry (802.11g
> vice chair) and I would be more than happy to try to address any
> questions that any of you have regarding 802.11g. I am available by
> e-mail (shoemake@ti.com) and by phone (214-226-4179).
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Matthew
>
>
> Matthew B. Shoemake, Ph.D. (m.b.shoemake@ieee.org)
>
> Phone: 214-480-2344 Fax: 972-761-5963
>
> IEEE 802.11 Task Group G Chairperson
>
> IEEE 802.11 Task Group N Chairperson Elect
>
>
> <excerpt>
>
> Howard
>
>
> Bob O'Hara wrote:
>
>
> <excerpt>I am forwarding this to the SEC reflector for Matthew
> Shoemake, 802.11
>
> TGg Chair.
>
> -Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Matthew B. Shoemake [mailto:shoemake@ti.com] Sent: Friday, May
> 30, 2003 1:03 PM
>
> To: Bob O'Hara
>
> Cc: 'Stuart.Kerry@philips.com'; john.terry@nokia.com
>
> Subject: Re: FW: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize
> Forwarding
>
> of the 802.11g draft to RevCom
>
> Bob,
>
> Thank you for forwarding Howard's comments. My responses are
>
> below. Please forward to the SEC.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matthew
>
> Howard and other SEC members,
>
> Please find my comments below.
>
> <excerpt>-----Original Message-----
>
> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:millardo@dominetsystems.com]
>
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 11:57 PM
>
> To: IEEE802
>
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of
>
> the 802.11g draft to RevCom
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Members of the SEC,
>
>
> Bob's point number 2 below, if correct, would
>
> be a near certain basis for disapproval at RevCom.
>
>
> Disapproval is also near certain if any comments
>
> associated with Disapprove ballots were received during
>
> the last recirculation. In fact, this is sufficient cause
>
> for a submittal to be automatically dropped from the RevCom
>
> agenda when the last recirc closed after the submittal
>
> deadline, as was the case with this project.
>
>
> Disapproval would also be near certain if
>
> the *verbatim* text of the comments and rebuttal were not
>
> recirculated. An Excel spreadsheet of the comments received
>
> from Gilb on the last recirc has been distributed to the members
>
> of RevCom. In this spreadsheet it appears that:
>
>
> A) The comments and proposed changes from Gilb have been
>
> truncated, probably inadvertently as a result of a formatting
>
> problem with the spreadsheet.
>
>
>
> </excerpt>These comments were truncated by Gilb and not by the
> committee. We received them in truncated form.
>
> <excerpt>B) There are no rebuttals to the comments.
>
>
> Perhaps there is a good explanation for all of this. If so,
>
> the following questions must be answered:
>
>
> I. Were ANY comments submitted with Disapprove ballots
>
> in the last recirculation?
>
>
> </excerpt>The only comments submitted with a disapprove vote came from
> Gilb and Moreton. All of the comments from Moreton were editorial,
> and all of the comments from Gilb where verbatim of old comments he
> had submitted.
>
> <excerpt>II. If comments were submitted with Disapprove ballots
>
> in the last recirculation, were ALL of them withdrawn by the
>
> balloter?
>
>
> </excerpt>Actually Moreton and Gilb each submitted new technical
> comments, but both of them withdrew them so that the process could
> move forward. I would encourage the SEC to take into account the
> intent of Mr. Moreton and Mr. Gilb's in with drawing these comments.
>
> <excerpt>III. If comments were submitted with Disapprove ballots in
>
> the last recirculation, and not withdrawn, were the comments
>
> on material that had changed from the previously balloted
>
> draft?
>
>
> </excerpt>We did have one comment on a section that had not changed,
> but it was withdrawn by the commenter and was therefore not included
> in the comment list.
>
> <excerpt>IV. Were ALL comments submitted with Disapprove ballots, that
>
> had not been withdrawn, and that were made on material that
>
> had changed from the previously balloted draft,
>
> recirculated *verbatim*, along with a rebuttal,
>
> to the ballot group?
>
>
>
> </excerpt>To the best of our knowledge, this is the case. As a result
> of your comment, we are double checking this just to make sure out of
> the thousands of comments processed, we did not miss one.
>
> On comment number 2 below, the comment in question is clearly
> editorial. The committee rules clearly state that it is the job of
> the chair to properly classify comments as editorial or technical. As
> a matter of practice, we take as a matter of fact the classification
> provided by the commenter, unless challenged by a member. In the case
> of Gilb8, a member challenged this as being technical or editorial.
> It is my opinion, after analysis, that the comment is clearly
> editorial. This determination was made because, if we had accepted
> the comment, there would have been no behavioral change to compliant
> devices. Task Group G also felt that the meaning of the paragraph was
> clear without the editorial change.
>
> Thanks for your comments, Howard.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Matthew B. Shoemake
>
> IEEE 802.11g Chairperson
>
> <excerpt>You should expect to receive questions like this from RevCom.
>
> It would be wise to have answers prepared. The desired
>
> answers are: I. No, II. Yes, III. No, IV. Yes.
>
>
> Howard Frazier
>
> Member, IEEE SASB RevCom
>
> Vice-Chairman, IEEE SASB
>
>
> Grow, Bob wrote:
>
>
>
> <excerpt>Vote = NO.
>
>
>
>
> There are substantive procedural lapses in the ballot process which
>
>
> </excerpt>form
>
>
> <excerpt>the basis of my vote. I can't though help but describe some
>
> frustrations with the available documentation that increased the time
>
> required to review the ballot information and either introduce
>
> contradictions and or confusion about the ballot.
>
>
>
>
> It was very difficult to figure out which 802.11g drafts were
>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>balloted
>
> <excerpt><excerpt>at sponsor ballot. (I would give URLs if the web
> site provided them,
>
> but the pull down menus do not update the URL so good luck in trying
>
>
> </excerpt>to
>
>
> <excerpt>replicate my descriptions.) From the pull down menu Group
> Updates /
>
> Task Groups / G, it appears that the initial sponsor ballot was on
>
>
> </excerpt>D6.2,
>
>
> <excerpt>the first recirculation ballot on D7.1, and the second
> recirculation
>
> ballot on D8.1, yet the ballot results (Group Updates / Ballot
>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>Results
>
> <excerpt>/
>
>
> <excerpt>Sponsor Ballots) list the second recirculation ballot on D8.2
> as
>
> described in the ballot material.
>
>
>
>
> Second frustration. What is with all the comment spreadsheets on the
>
> 802.11 web site. With limited time, I had to assume that the one
>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>with
>
> <excerpt><excerpt>the latest date was the final comment report for the
> specific ballot.
>
>
>
>
> Of substantive concern:
>
>
>
>
> 1. From the second page referenced above, it appears that the first
>
> recirculation ballot though listed as 15 days was only 14 complete
>
>
> </excerpt>days
>
>
> <excerpt>(14.xxx days) in violation of LMSC sponsor ballot periods.
>
>
>
>
> 2. After reviewing the comment database provided with the motion, I
>
>
> </excerpt>am
>
>
> <excerpt>concerned about the Gilb8 comment on line 20 of the comment
> summary.
>
> From the database, I am assuming that the comment was:
>
>
> a. Originally submitted on the initial D6.2 sponsor ballot (the
>
>
> </excerpt>Gilb23
>
>
> <excerpt>reference).
>
>
> b. Resubmitted on the second sponsor recirculation ballot (D8.2) as
>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>a
>
> <excerpt><excerpt>technical comment.
>
>
> c. That the BRC on the second sponsor recirculation ballot
>
>
> </excerpt>reclassified
>
>
> <excerpt>the comment as editorial.
>
>
>
>
> While I find the willingness of the committee to perpetuate ambiguity
>
>
> </excerpt>in
>
>
> <excerpt>the specification with the continued use of both underscore
> and
>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>hyphen
>
> <excerpt><excerpt>in primitive names disappointing, it is the
> procedural aspects that
>
>
> </excerpt>are
>
>
> <excerpt>the purview of the SEC. It is appropriate in the comment
> response
>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>for
>
> <excerpt><excerpt>the BRC to respond that the issue is really
> editorial, it isn't the
>
> BRC's option to reclassify a comment that was the basis for a
>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>negative
>
> <excerpt><excerpt>vote as being an editorial issue and therefore
> non-binding.
>
>
>
>
> 3. I couldn't find answers to some questions related to this
>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>comment:
>
> <excerpt><excerpt>
>
>
> a. Why is there no Gilb 23 in the D6.2 comment database? (The
>
>
> </excerpt>comment
>
>
> <excerpt>database in the motion package indicates it was a "first
> sponsor
>
>
> </excerpt>ballot"
>
>
> <excerpt>comment.) I can't evaluate if the comment was the same as
> Gilb23 if
>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>I
>
> <excerpt><excerpt>can't find it!)
>
>
> b. Did the commenter explicitly accept the reclassification of the
>
> second recirculation comment (Gilb8)?
>
>
>
>
> 4. Some comments in the motion package provided are resolved as
>
> "Counter" with recommended changes to the document. (Moreton 18, and
>
> 19). Though I am unfamiliar with the term Counter (and I couldn't
>
>
> </excerpt>find
>
>
> <excerpt>it defined on the 802.11 web site), it looks like what 802.3
> names
>
> "Accept in Principle" where the commenter has raised a valid problem
>
>
> </excerpt>but
>
>
> <excerpt>a different remedy is implemented than that
> recommended by the
>
> commenter. (This might be transferable to the frustration section
>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>but
>
> <excerpt><excerpt>it is impossible to determine on which ballot these
> comments were
>
>
> </excerpt>entered.)
>
>
> <excerpt>
>
>
> --Bob Grow
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 6:32 PM
>
> To: IEEE802
>
> Subject: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of
>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>the
>
> <excerpt><excerpt>802.11g draft to RevCom
>
>
> Dear SEC members,
>
>
> This is a 15 day SEC email ballot to make a determination by an SEC
>
> motion to authorize forwarding 802.11g Draft 8.2 to RevCom.
>
>
> Moved by Stuart J. Kerry
>
> Seconded by Bob Heile
>
>
> The email ballot opens on Wednesday May 21st, 2003 10PM ET and closes
>
> Thursday June 5th, 2003 10PM ET.
>
>
> Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector with a CC directly
>
>
> </excerpt>to
>
>
> <excerpt>me (p.nikolich@ieee.org).
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> - Paul Nikolich
>
>
> SUPPORTING INFORMATION / DOCUMENTATION Below:
>
>
> +++++++++
>
>
> LAST SPONSOR BALLOT RESULTS:
>
>
> Ballot: P802.11g/D8.2 2nd IEEE Recirculation Ballot which Closed
>
> 2003-05-14, and obtained a 95% approval.
>
>
> This ballot has met the 75% returned ballot requirement.
>
> 96 eligible people in this ballot group.
>
> 64 affirmative votes
>
> 3 negative votes with comments
>
> 0 negative votes without comments
>
> 10 abstention votes
>
> =====
>
> 77 votes received = 80% returned
>
> 12% abstention
>
>
> The 75% affirmation requirement is being met.
>
> 64 affirmative votes
>
> 3 negative votes with comments
>
> =====
>
> 67 votes = 95% affirmative
>
>
> +++++++++
>
>
> RESULTS OF TASK GROUP G AND 802.11 WG MOTIONS at DALLAS 802.11
>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>session
>
> <excerpt><excerpt>(May 2003):
>
>
> Move to Forward IEEE 802.11g Draft 8.2 to the IEEE 802 SEC and to
>
>
> </excerpt>RevCom
>
>
> <excerpt>for Final Approval
>
>
> Task Group G: 26 / 0 / 0
>
> 802.11 WG: 102 / 0 / 2
>
>
> +++++++++
>
>
> SUMMARY OF REMAINING VOTERS ISSUES:
>
>
> Attached is a summary of status of the three "no" voters
>
> (O'Farrell, Moreton, Gilb) and the one new "yes" with comments voter
>
> (Monteban).
>
>
> Tim O'Farrell, Supergold
>
>
> Tim voted NO on the first Sponsor Ballot, i.e. Draft 6.1 of
>
>
> </excerpt>IEEE
>
>
> <excerpt>802.11g. We have not been able to contact him sense.
> E-mails were
>
>
> </excerpt>sent
>
>
> <excerpt>on both recirculation ballots requesting his response. At
> the April
>
> 2003 session of 802.11g, multiple attempts were made to contact Tim
>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>to
>
> <excerpt><excerpt>no avail. On the first recirculation ballot, Tim
> provided five
>
> comments. One comments was editorial, and it was accepted. The
>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>other
>
> <excerpt><excerpt>four comments were technical. Tim had two comments
> related to
>
>
> </excerpt>removing
>
>
> <excerpt>optional functionality, which were both rejected. Tim also
> had two
>
> comments related to ACR which were both rejected.
>
>
> - Summary for Tim O'Farrell
>
> o Voted "No" on first sponsor ballot
>
> o Has not voted on last of the recirculation ballots
>
> o Attempts at contact have failed
>
>
> Mike Moreton, Synad
>
>
> Mike voted NO WITH COMMENTS on Draft 8.2. All of Mike
>
>
> </excerpt>comments
>
>
> <excerpt>were editorial. Mike currently maintains his NO
> vote based on
>
> previously circulated comments.
>
>
> - Summary for Mike Moreton
>
> o Voted "No" on Draft 8.2 based on previously submitted
>
>
> </excerpt>technical
>
>
> <excerpt>comments
>
> o Submitted no new technical comments on Draft 8.2
>
> o Submitted 7 editorial comments
>
> o All editorial comments were rejected
>
>
> James Gilb, Appairent
>
>
> James also voted NO WITH COMMENTS on Draft 8.2. All of James
>
> comments have previously been circulated. James maintains his NO
>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>vote
>
> <excerpt><excerpt>base on previously circulated comments.
>
>
> - Summary for James Gilb
>
> o Voted "No" on Draft 8.2
>
> o Submitted 14 technical and editorial comments on Draft 8.2
>
> o None of the technical comments are new
>
> o All comments were rejected
>
>
> Leo Monteban, Agere
>
>
> Leo voted YES WITH COMMENTS on Draft 8.2. Leo submitted two
>
> editorial comments. Both editorial comments were found to be
>
> non-substantive by IEEE 802.11 Task Group G, thus both were rejected.
>
>
> - Summary for Leo Monteban
>
> o Cast a "Yes" vote with two comments
>
> o Both comments were editorial
>
> o Both comments were rejected
>
>
> +++++++++
>
>
> All Comment Resolutions are included in Doc#: 11-03-381 rev.7 as
>
>
> </excerpt>posted
>
>
> <excerpt>to the 802.11 web site, which contains all the comments from
> the
>
> recirculation of Draft 8.2. . A copy of which is attached for you
>
> convenience. The document also contains Tim O'Farrell's comment from
>
> the first sponsor ballot and Mike Moreton's and James Gilb's comments
>
> from the first ballot.
>
>
>
>
> As there were no new no votes or comments and no subsequent change
>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>was
>
> <excerpt><excerpt>made to the 802.11g Draft 8.2, this ballot is
> concluded and D8.2 and
>
> supporting documentation will be forwarded to RevCom for action at
>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>the
>
> <excerpt><excerpt>upcoming meeting in June.
>
>
> / 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
>
> _______________________________
>
>
>
> </excerpt>
>
> </excerpt></excerpt>
>
>
>
> </excerpt>
>
>
> --Apple-Mail-5-881750776--
>
>