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

RE: [802SEC] Get IEEE 802 program status report; motion proposal

Dear SEC,

I made a mistake in posting the Get802 document to the SEC reflector--it
contains information that should remain confidential to the SEC group
exclusively.  Please do not post revised/updated copies to the SEC
reflector--but send it only to the SEC members, Howard Frazier and Jerry
Walker directly (I have attached these email addresses to this email--send
communications to this list only).

I have asked Bob O'Hara to delete all copies of posted Get802 documents from
public reflectors--I'm not sure if he can do this, but we need to stop
public distribution of the document immediately.


--Paul Nikolich
802 Chair

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Grow, Bob
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 10:25 PM
To: ''; 'IEEE802'
Cc: 'Frazier, Howard'; 'Thompson, Geoff'; 'Walker, Jerry'; 'Carlo, Jim';
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Get IEEE 802 program status report; motion


I have five significant problems with the document.

1.  It does not define the 6 month wait period sufficiently well.
2.  It needs to be separated into three parts: agreement, background and
FAQ.  The agreement and FAQ would be distributable to our WGs but not
necessarily the background (limited distribution of the financials).
3.  The usage of trademark symbols needs to be consistent with standard
industry practice.
4.  The LMSC plenary payment for program extension should be moved up into
the agreement.
5.  A couple of the FAQs exceeded my BS threshold for marketing spin.  I
expect vocal participants in my WG would be equally sensitive.

I took Buzz's version and hacked it up big time.  All comments [RMG: ...]
would be deleted before approval.  (If you aren't that familiar with MS
Word, I turned "Track Changes" on.  To make the document more readable, go
to  Tools/TrackChanges/HighlightChanges and uncheck "Highlight changes on
screen".  My [RMG:...] comments will remain on screen, but the strikeout and
underscores and color will go away.)

--Bob Grow

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich []
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 11:50 AM
To: 'IEEE802'
Cc: 'Frazier, Howard'; 'Thompson, Geoff'; 'Walker, Jerry'; 'Carlo, Jim';
Subject: [802SEC] Get IEEE 802 program status report; motion proposal

Dear SEC,

Attached is a document describing the Get IEEE 802 program.  The document
recommends the program remain in place as originally established (6 month
pay period) and is closely monitored by the IEEE-SA, IEEE 802 SEC and
IEEE-SA BOG to ensure there are no surprises if adjustments need to be made.

The document also
- addresses the concerns brought up during the two SEC ballots to release
Get802 funds,
- clarifies the terms and conditions of the agreement and
- takes into account the many discussions Geoff Thompson, Howard Frazier,
Jerry Walker and I have had on the topic.

Additionally, Jerry Walker has agreed the terms and conditions of the
program would not be adjusted unless the actual program revenue exceeds
+/-20% the budgeted amounts as indicated the attached document.

After reviewing this document, I would like to conduct a SEC ballot on this
topic next week (to close no later than Monday June 10), so that I can bring
the results to the Standards Board meeting the week of June 10 for
discussion with IEEE-SA, IEEE-SA BoG president, Ben Johnson and IEEE-SA
Standards Board Chair, Jim Carlo. The wording of the Motion to be balloted
would be something like: "Move that the IEEE 802 SEC immediately release the
March 2002 funds held in escrow to continue the Get IEEE 802 program as
decribed in the "Detailed Description of the "Get IEEE 802" program""

If you have any concerns--please air them immediately, as we would like to
take them into account and make adjustments to the document such that the
above proposed motion has a high probility of passing.  I think I speak for
the SEC, IEEE-SA and IEEE BOG that we would all like to see this program
continue.  Releasing the escrowed 802 funds under mutually agreeable terms
is the first step in achieving that goal. Let's try hard to make that happen
next week.


--Paul Nikolich
Chair, IEEE 802

-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 2:02 PM
Subject: Latest version

Here is the version with the changes we discussed.

(See attached file: Detailed Description of the Get IEEE 802 programs.doc)