RE: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of the 802.11g draft to RevCom
Title: Message
I have
spoken with Bob Grow about the apparent situation with the handling of comments
during the sponsor ballot phase of 802.11g. If the allegations made by Bob
are correct, then 802.11g is not ready to be sent to
RevCom.
However, I believe that Matthew Shoemake has responded with data that the
process has been followed properly. It may not be clear from the 802.11
web site that this is so and it may be difficult to find. But, it is so,
nonetheless. I have asked Matthew to clarify a couple questions I had on
his last email to this reflector. I am sure he will respond
shortly.
To
respond to Geoff's comment about the 802.11g process failing under scrutiny, I
would say that Geoff does a disservice to the chair and members of 802.11g to
believe that any single person was responsible for the resolution of any
comment. What Matthew had written in an earlier email was that the task
group editor wrote the proposed resolution to certain comments, just as many
other proposed resolutions are written by task group editors in every other 802
working group.
For
certain comments, the 802.11g task group decided that the comment's nature was
other than that indicated by the commenter. Some comments were decided to
be dealt with as editorial that the commenter indicated were technical and
others were decided to be dealt with as technical that the commenter indicated
were editorial. The task group editor had the original comment and its
classification, as well as the direction of the task group, when writing the
proposed resolutions.
After
the proposed resolution was written, it was scrutinized and discussed by the
task group (and the commenter, if they were in attendance) before being approved
by the entire task group and, subsequently, by the 802.11 working group.
If the sole justification for Geoff's disapproval of this motion is that the
task group editor did not have enough information to properly craft a
resolution, I would challenge it as being insufficient.
For
those of you that have voted to disapprove this motion on the basis of
allegations alone, I would ask that you re-read Matthew's emails and examine the
attachments. These are the facts of the sponsor ballot process for
802.11g. I would ask that you also examine any facts that the process
followed by 802.11g disenfranchised any balloter.
For
those of you that have propagated allegations that the process was not followed
properly by 802.11g, I challenge each of you to provide the data to support
those allegations, or to drop the allegations as unsubstantiated and vote
to approve this motion.
Until
such point as facts are presented to show that 802.11g did not follow the
correct process or disenfranchised any balloters, I maintain my vote to APPROVE
this motion.
-Bob
Bob and SEC members:
My comment are included below.
-----Original Message-----
From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:55 PM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of
the 802.11g draft to RevCom
Colleagues:
This project is almost certain to be bounced by RevCom. In addition to
the irregularities of at least one comment being improperly reclassified
from Technical to Editorial,
I would like to make it clear that we have not reclassified any comments in
a way that allows them to be dismissed. This is proven by the fact that every
SEC member and RevCom member has that comment in front of them in this process.
The comment was addressed by the committee, and it was recirculated, and it was
sent to SEC and RevCom with our resolution. The fact that 802.11 Task Group G
believes that the comment was actually editorial and not technical is
irrelevant, as we still properly process, addressed, recirculated and carried
this comment from the negative voter.
I have just learned that there is another
serious irregularity in the sponsor ballot process, and that
irregularity has been reported to members of RevCom.
A negative balloter was instructed that to maintain negative comments,
they had to be resubmitted on each recirculation ballot, or the TG/WG
would consider the negative comments as satisfied.
This is not correct. I have never told a voter that they must resubmit
comments on each ballot. On every single ballot, I have included comments that
go all the way back to the original ballot from the negative voters. For the
submission to the SEC and to RevCom, this included comments from Mike Moreton,
James Gilb and Tim O'Farrell as negative voters. For all three of these, I went
back through the comments from the original sponsor ballot and the subsequent
two recirculations to pull all their comments for you to review.
Stuart Kerry and I heard about a week ago from Mike Moreton of a missing
comment. Strangely, we have only heard the allegation and have not received
detail on the supposed missing comment. John Terry, 802.11g vice chair, has gone
through over the last week and analyzed all of Mike Moreton's comments. We have
found no irregularities. In light of allegations with no data to pack them up, I
encourage you to vote affirmative and move 802.11g forward.
You should also be aware that in every recirculation ballot, I provided the
voting members with access to every single comment and its resolution, whether
or not we accept rejected or counter the comment. In addition, you should be
aware that 802.11g has never thrown any comment out as invalid. We have
addressed every comment whether or not we thought it was valid, invalid,
technical or editorial. And to give you an example of how we circulated the
comments, I have included the three comment files that were circulated with the
last recirculation of 802.11g, i.e. Draft 8.2. You will find a that we included
a file with all new negative comments, a file with all old negative comments and
a file with all new comments. IEEE 802.11 Task Group G has been very thorough in
making sure all comments have been recirculated, so we make sure we avoid
exactly the issue that has arisen here.