Re: [STDS-802-16] RevCom submittal of IEEE P802.16-REVd/D5
Roger,
Somehow following link you provided fails. It seems 80216-04_26r1.pdf does not exist in that diretory.
http://ieee802.org/16/private/ballots/misc/80216-04_26r1.pdf <http://ieee802.org/16/private/ballots/misc/80216-04_26r1.pdf>
Thanks
Lalit
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org on behalf of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Sun 6/6/2004 10:00 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] RevCom submittal of IEEE P802.16-REVd/D5
Dave,
The final RevCom submittal package for IEEE P802.16-REVd/D5 is here:
http://ieee802.org/16/private/ballots/misc/80216-04_26r1.pdf
This submittal has been revised to document the completion of the
second recirculation. As I noted on May 30, it closed with no new
Disapprove votes and no new Disapprove comments.
The second recirculation did include some comments not associated
with Disapprove votes. All but one were later withdrawn. That one was
reviewed by the Ballot Resolution Committee and rejected.
With this result, I consider the Sponsor Ballot of IEEE P802.16-REVd,
including all recirculations, closed and complete. The final result
is 59 Approve, 1 Disapprove, 2 Abstain (98.3% Approve).
I will ask the editor to deliver to you the final balloted draft in
FrameMaker format.
I look forward to RevCom review of this package. Please let me know
if you have any additional questions.
Regards,
Roger
>Dave,
>
>I want to inform you that the P802.16-REVd/D5 recirculation closed
>yesterday. The result has met the RevCom conditions.
>
>(a) Of the 11 Disapprove voters, 10 have changed to Approve. No one
>else voted Disapprove. This brings the approval status to 59
>Approve, 1 Disapprove, 2 Abstain (98.3% Approve).
>(b) The single Disapprove voter submitted only a single comment;
>that one was a repeat of a previous comment. Specifically, that
>comment said:
>
>"The contrived group rationale for rejection of comment 004 as
>listed 802.16-04/20r11 was already entirely refuted in the Reason
>for Recommendation as provided with the comment. There seems hence
>little need to provide further argumentation beyond pointing to the
>original comment and Reason for Recommendation."
>
>and the Suggested Remedy was: "Reconsider comment 004."
>
>Regards,
>
>Roger
>
>
>>Dave,
>>
>>I have submitted the RevCom form for IEEE P802.16-REVd/D5.
>>
>>The full submittal package is here:
>> http://ieee802.org/16/private/ballots/misc/80216-04_26.pdf
>>
>>I did not include the complete ballot results; just the front pages
>>showing the totals. I have attached the complete results here.
>>
>>I am working with Andy Ickowicz to get the second recirc opened by Friday.
>>
>>I will be on an airplane today, with a plane change from 1:30-3 pm
>>(NJ time). I might be able to respond to any concerns then. Please
>>copy the 802.16 Vice Chair, Ken Stanwood <kstanwood@cygnuscom.com>
>>with any communications.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Roger