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

RE: [802SEC] RE: <802.11Technical> IMPORTANT-ACTION REQUIRED FOR BRIEF EMAIL B ALLOT




1. Regarding the quorum issue, Robert's Rules (see my earlier e-mail), as
well as  WG Rules 2.7.2, do, IMO indeed imply that the meeting was adjourned
prematurely.  I think it is crystal clear: if a quorum is not present, we
proceed as though the quorum was present, with the understanding that the
decisions made need to be formally ratified at the next plenary.

2. With regard to 2.82 of the WG operating rules, I would again maintain
that 802.11g met those requirements- as I stated in the meeting, 802.11g
gave us guidance that engineers skilled in the art working for different
vendors could, in fact, interpret the draft to build an interoperable
standard, which I submit, should be the criterion for "completeness." 

Moreover, as was discussed in 802.11e, I do feel that we need to focus on
attempting to relax the burden on the draft editor by relaxing the
requirements in clause b) somewhat.

John



John M. Kowalski, Ph.D.
Sharp Laboratories of America     http://www.sharplabs.com
5750 NW Pacific Rim Blvd.
Camas WA, 98607
Phone: (360) 817-7520
Fax: (360) 834-8696
email: kowalskj@sharplabs.com
pager: 3609104711@voicestream.cc   (160 characters)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stuart Kerry [mailto:stuart.kerry@philips.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 2:28 PM
> To: stds-802-11@ieee.org
> Cc: 802sec (stds-802-sec@ieee.org)
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] RE: <802.11Technical> IMPORTANT-ACTION REQUIRED
> FOR BRIEF EMAIL B ALLOT
> 
> 
> 
> Members of 802.11,
> 
> I would urge all members to review the 802.11 WG Operating 
> rules, section 
> 2.8.2, sited by Bob O'Hara, regarding the present TGG Draft 
> email ballot 
> before they vote in this important issue on whether to go to 
> WG Letter 
> Ballot on the draft.  I would stress that all members should 
> understand and 
> interpret this section themselves. As chair I am seeking the 
> viewpoint of 
> the members from the minority and majority stance before 
> going forward with 
> any action. Hopefully with a consensus view. I would also ask 
> members to 
> refer to 802 Operating Rules as well.
> 
> The other thing that has become clear is, OUR rules are not 
> clear, and need 
> urgent revision to make them workable, and become understood 
> by all. The 
> other area is the definition of a quorum at Interim meetings, and the 
> empowerment motions we are using for work to be completed at 
> interims. This 
> latter area has been raised many times at the 802 SEC, and 
> needs to be 
> resolved promptly. Which I have raised once again with the 
> 802 Chair, and 
> urge him to address this early on in the week at the St. 
> Louis plenary meeting.
> 
> Finally, this current ballot LB# 31 began on Friday, January 
> 25th, 2002 and 
> WILL END at 2359 CST on January 30,2002. So I empress upon 
> you all to vote 
> before the close.
> 
> Stuart J. Kerry
> 
> 
> At 04:50 PM 1/26/02 -0800, Bob O'Hara wrote:
> 
> >As I pointed out at the closing plenary (and will no doubt 
> be pilloried for
> >mentioning here) the TGg draft does not meet the 
> requirements set forth in
> >our operating rules to be sent for letter ballot.  The 
> operating rules state
> >the following:
> >
> >2.8.2 Draft Standard Balloting Requirements
> >Before a draft is submitted to WG letter ballot it shall in 
> addition have
> >met the following requirements:
> >a)    It must be complete with no open technical issues.
> >
> >And
> >
> >e)   It must be approved for submittal to WG ballot at the 
> 802.11 WG closing
> >plenary.
> >
> >It is clear that the draft created at the interim meeting 
> does not meet
> >either of these criteria.
> >
> >The first criterion is debatable.  Some may consider that 
> the lack of a
> >PICS, of MIB additions, and of changes to the MAC state machine that
> >correspond to the changes to the MAC proposed in the text do 
> not constitute
> >"incompleteness".  I disagree.  You are asked by this motion 
> to judge the
> >technical completeness, not technical correctness of the 
> draft.  Each of the
> >items listed here would require a 75% approval to include in 
> the draft.
> >They are therefore technical.  Their lack in the draft makes 
> it incomplete.
> >Look at the 802.11b supplement to the 802.11 standard fro an 
> example of what
> >is required to be complete.
> >
> >You will be told that "this is the way it has been done 
> before.  Look at
> >802.11b, it is still not correct, we just had to do that 
> corrigendum thing."
> >This is a red herring, attempting to make you look away from 
> the real issue.
> >The corrigendum has to do with CORRECTNESS, not COMPLETENESS.
> >
> >You, as a voting member of 802.11, are being asked to make a 
> significant
> >investment of your time to conduct a full technical review of a draft
> >standard, at the risk of losing your voting rights if you do 
> not respond.
> >It is incumbent on the task group creating this draft to 
> have completed its
> >work, to the best of its ability and knowledge, before 
> asking you to accept
> >this obligation.  It is my opinion that they have not 
> completed their work.
> >It was stated in the January closing plenary that the editor 
> "was working on
> >the MIB text".  Obviously, the task group knows the draft is 
> not complete,
> >if the editor is working on text creation.
> >
> >The second criterion is not debatable.  This draft was not 
> approved at any
> >802.11 WG closing plenary.  Even if the plenary in November 
> "empowered" the
> >action proposed by this motion, it did so in violation of 
> its own operating
> >rules.  This draft did not exist in November and was in no 
> way "approved" at
> >that time.  This draft also was not approved in the closing 
> plenary of the
> >802.11 WG in January.
> >
> >Contrary to the statements made in the email announcing this 
> ballot, there
> >ARE certain procedures required to forward a draft to WG 
> letter ballot.
> >There are very good reasons for the existence of these procedures.
> >
> >Therefore because I am certain that this motion will not be 
> withdrawn even
> >though it violates our operating rules, I ask that you vote 
> against the
> >motion.
> >
> >  -Bob O'Hara
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Stuart Kerry [mailto:stuart.kerry@philips.com]
> >Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:04 PM
> >To: stds-802-11@ieee.org
> >Cc: Stuart.Kerry@philips.com
> >Subject: <802.11Technical> IMPORTANT-ACTION REQUIRED FOR 
> BRIEF EMAIL BALLOT
> >Importance: High
> >
> >
> >To 802.11 Colleagues-
> >
> >Due to an unfortunate set of circumstances, the closing 
> plenary of 802.11
> >was adjourned prematurely.   A more careful review of the 
> minutes from the
> >Austin meeting revealed that a motion was passed to empower 
> the working
> >group to issue the 11g draft at the January 2002 meeting.  
> Procedurally, no
> >further vote was required, but in the confusion, this was 
> not realized until
> >it was too late.  The exact wording of that motion is: "Move 
> to empower
> >802.11 to issue a WG letter ballot on the 802.11g draft at 
> the January 2002
> >interim session" (59,0,2).
> >
> >Following these events I called a meeting to discuss the 
> issues.  It was
> >attended by myself, Harry Worstel, Al Petrick, Vic Hayes, 
> Bob Heile and Paul
> >Nikolich, chair of 802, on the phone.  The meeting was later 
> joined by
> >Matthew Shoemake.  Although it was agreed that a letter 
> ballot could be
> >initiated without further action, based on the Austin 
> motion, I decided it
> >would be best to initiate a brief  5 day email ballot to gain the
> >affirmation of the Working Group membership.  Such ballots 
> are within the
> >chair's prerogative and in discussion with Paul, are 
> consistent with 802
> >Executive Committee precedence.
> >
> >The 5 day email ballot will be called LB 31 and consists of 
> the following:
> >
> >Motion:  Begin a 40 day Working Group letter ballot of TGg 
> Draft  2.1,
> >starting at noon CST on Jan 31, 2002 and ending at noon CST 
> on March 11,
> >2002
> >
> >This email ballot is procedural and will require 50% 
> approval of those
> >voting yes or no in order to pass .  Based on the current 
> voting roster of
> >287, a minimum of 144 voters must return ballots.  There can 
> be no more than
> >30% abstentions of all votes as stated in the 802 rules.
> >
> >Vote YES, NO, or ABSTAIN.  No comments are required as there 
> will be no
> >resolution of the no votes.  Because of the brief nature of 
> this ballot, if
> >for some reason you can not vote, it will not impact your 
> voting rights.
> >
> >Ballots should be returned to stuart.kerry@philips.com with copies to
> >apetrick@icefyre.com and hworstell@research.att.com.
> >
> >Please put   LB31-{your last name}-{y,n,a}  in the subject 
> line of your
> >return email.     example (LB31-Kerry-yes)
> >
> >This ballot will begin immediately and end at 2359 CST on 
> January 30,2002
> >-------------------------
> >
> >We also discussed the balance of business that remained on 
> the agenda.  TGe
> >had hoped to bring a rules change proposal to the floor. 
> Based on the length
> >of the TGg discussion,however, it was unlikely we would have 
> had time for it
> >anyway before the hard stop at noon.  Regardless, the chairs 
> advisory core
> >will meet next week to review the 
> presentation/interpretation of the Working
> >Group rules and make a recommendation for action at the 
> opening session in
> >St. Louis.
> >
> >Additionally, Vic was unable to formally secure WG approval on the
> >Regulatory submissions, but these documents were reviewed 
> and approved in
> >TGh ( 23,0,2)  and in 802.15 (unanimous consent).  Based on 
> that approval,
> >it was decided to pass them through to the 802 Executive 
> Committee for final
> >review and then send them on to their destination without 
> loss of time.
> >
> >I want to thank you for a very productive week and regret 
> that it ended on a
> >bit of an unfortunate note.  I believe with these actions we 
> can feel proud
> >that we have accomplished all that we set out to do even if 
> it was by a
> >slightly circuitous route.
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Stuart J 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
> Phone: 508-222-1393
> Mobile: 781-929-4832
> Fax: 	    508-222-0515
> email:   bheile@ieee.org
> Pager: 800-759-8888  PIN 1109355
>