RE: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of the 802.11g draft to RevCom
I am forwarding this to the SEC reflector for Matthew Shoemake, 802.11
From: Matthew B. Shoemake [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 1:03 PM
To: Bob O'Hara
Cc: 'Stuart.Kerry@philips.com'; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: FW: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding
of the 802.11g draft to RevCom
Thank you for forwarding Howard's comments. My responses are
Please forward to the SEC.
Howard and other SEC members,
Please find my comments below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:email@example.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 in the last recirculation, were ALL of them withdrawn by the
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
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
> 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.
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
>> 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
>> 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
>> replicate my descriptions.) From the pull down menu Group Updates /
>> Task Groups / G, it appears that the initial sponsor ballot was on
>> the first recirculation ballot on D7.1, and the second recirculation
>> ballot on D8.1, yet the ballot results (Group Updates / Ballot
>> 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
>> 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
>> (14.xxx days) in violation of LMSC sponsor ballot periods.
>> 2. After reviewing the comment database provided with the motion, I
>> 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
>> b. Resubmitted on the second sponsor recirculation ballot (D8.2) as
>> technical comment.
>> c. That the BRC on the second sponsor recirculation ballot
>> the comment as editorial.
>> While I find the willingness of the committee to perpetuate ambiguity
>> the specification with the continued use of both underscore and
>> in primitive names disappointing, it is the procedural aspects that
>> the purview of the SEC. It is appropriate in the comment response
>> 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
>> vote as being an editorial issue and therefore non-binding.
>> 3. I couldn't find answers to some questions related to this
>> a. Why is there no Gilb 23 in the D6.2 comment database? (The
>> database in the motion package indicates it was a "first sponsor
>> comment.) I can't evaluate if the comment was the same as Gilb23 if
>> 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
>> 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
>> a different remedy is implemented than that recommended by the
>> commenter. (This might be transferable to the frustration section
>> it is impossible to determine on which ballot these comments were
>> --Bob Grow
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 6:32 PM
>> To: IEEE802
>> Subject: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of
>> 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
>> me (email@example.com).
>> - 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
>> (May 2003):
>> Move to Forward IEEE 802.11g Draft 8.2 to the IEEE 802 SEC and to
>> 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
>> Tim O'Farrell, Supergold
>> Tim voted NO on the first Sponsor Ballot, i.e. Draft 6.1 of
>> 802.11g. We have not been able to contact him sense. E-mails were
>> on both recirculation ballots requesting his response. At the April
>> 2003 session of 802.11g, multiple attempts were made to contact Tim
>> no avail. On the first recirculation ballot, Tim provided five
>> comments. One comments was editorial, and it was accepted. The
>> four comments were technical. Tim had two comments related to
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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: firstname.lastname@example.org