RE: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of the 802.11g draft to RevCom
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of the 802.11g draft to RevCom
- From: "Grow, Bob" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 16:55:19 -0700
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Thread-Index: AcMpOFfx8uq33OrSTxC/42/+BGG2JQBvC5ew
- Thread-Topic: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of the 802.11g draft to RevCom
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 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. The balloter has complained that negative comments from the initial sponsor ballot were not included in the package for the first recirculation ballot, the negative comments were never satisfied, and the negative comments were not included in the package submitted to the SEC and RevCom.
Many of you voted early before these problems were highlighted. It would help the reputation of all of IEEE 802 if 802.11g were pulled from the RevCom agenda. I respectfully request that affirmative voters reconsider and change their votes to disapprove on leaving 802.11g on the RevCom agenda.