Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of the 802.11g draft to RevCom
Bob and SEC members:
My comment are included below.
From: Grow, Bob [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:55 PM
Subject: RE: [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 would like to make it clear that we have not reclassified any comments in a way that allows them to be dismissed. This is proven by the fact that every SEC member and RevCom member has that comment in front of them in this process. The comment was addressed by the committee, and it was recirculated, and it was sent to SEC and RevCom with our resolution. The fact that 802.11 Task Group G believes that the comment was actually editorial and not technical is irrelevant, as we still properly process, addressed, recirculated and carried this comment from the negative voter.
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.
This is not correct. I have never told a voter that they must resubmit comments on each ballot. On every single ballot, I have included comments that go all the way back to the original ballot from the negative voters. For the submission to the SEC and to RevCom, this included comments from Mike Moreton, James Gilb and Tim O'Farrell as negative voters. For all three of these, I went back through the comments from the original sponsor ballot and the subsequent two recirculations to pull all their comments for you to review.
Stuart Kerry and I heard about a week ago from Mike Moreton of a missing comment. Strangely, we have only heard the allegation and have not received detail on the supposed missing comment. John Terry, 802.11g vice chair, has gone through over the last week and analyzed all of Mike Moreton's comments. We have found no irregularities. In light of allegations with no data to pack them up, I encourage you to vote affirmative and move 802.11g forward.
You should also be aware that in every recirculation ballot, I provided the voting members with access to every single comment and its resolution, whether or not we accept rejected or counter the comment. In addition, you should be aware that 802.11g has never thrown any comment out as invalid. We have addressed every comment whether or not we thought it was valid, invalid, technical or editorial. And to give you an example of how we circulated the comments, I have included the three comment files that were circulated with the last recirculation of 802.11g, i.e. Draft 8.2. You will find a that we included a file with all new negative comments, a file with all old negative comments and a file with all new comments. IEEE 802.11 Task Group G has been very thorough in making sure all comments have been recirculated, so we make sure we avoid exactly the issue that has arisen here.
11-03-281r16-G-TGg March 2003 Sponsor Recirculation Comment Resolution.xls
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.
Again, such an accusation should be accompanied by the alleged comment that has been omitted.
I would like to make you aware of one more thing. Both Mr. Gilb and Mr. Moreton withdrew all of their new technical comments on the last 802.11g recirculation ballot, because they did not want those comments to force another recirculation. In addition, when given the opportunity to personally vote at the 802.11 WG level on forward draft 8.2 for final approval, Mr. Moreton abstained, so it would seem odd at best for the SEC or RevCom to vote NO on his behalf when he actually abstained.
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.
With all due respect, I must advise you that I believe this is the exact opposite of the reality of the situation. There is so much pent up demand for 802.11g, that the IEEE and IEEE 802 will be lambasted in the press if 802.11g is delayed. This is not an overstatement. Interoperable products based on the 802.11g specification have been shipping for half a year, and another quarter delay will be very poorly received. You should know that there has already been a tremendous amount of press about 802.11g. The IEEE is poised to either experience a great positive windfall on June 12 when the standards board approves 802.11g, or the polar opposite if 802.11g is not approved.
The Wi-Fi Alliance has been waiting for approval from the IEEE to start their testing program. They are trying to be cooperative with the IEEE. I can tell you now that I am at the Wi-Fi Alliance meeting in Vancouver. I have spoken with the leaders of the Wi-Fi Alliance, and what is likely to happen if 802.11g approval is delay is that WFA and their member companies will declare the IEEE process not satisfactory or fast enough. They will begin their certification process, and they will use their substantial press resources to announce to the world that IEEE ratification of standards is not important and is irrelevant.
The reputation of the IEEE will be utterly damaged if ratification of IEEE does not move forward on schedule for ratification on June 12, 2003. I do not want to belabor this point, but it is a serious one for the IEEE, as the IEEE is already viewed by the WLAN community as not being able to move fast enough to meet their markets needs, and there has been serious talk about the Wi-Fi Alliance entering the standards business for WLAN to overcome the problems that it has with 802.11e, 802.11i, 802.11g, etc. being slow to ratification. I encourage both the SEC and the RevCom members sitting on the SEC to take this into account and help 802.11g move forward. With all due respect to Mr. Heile and his committee, I do not want to see IEEE 802 turn into a numbering organization for Wi-Fi Alliance standards, as we did with Bluetooth and IEEE 802.15.1.
We are standing on unanimous motions from the 802.11g Task Group and the 802.11 Working Group asking for approval of 802.11g Draft 8.2. We have only three negative voters on the sponsor ballot. One of those we have not heard from for almost 6 months and have been unable to reach. I am willing to certify that it is my belief that the IEEE procedure has been followed for IEEE, and would even do so in court if a member company brought suit against the IEEE over this issue. And why would a company bring suit against IEEE over this, and why have I heard them talk about this at the Wi-Fi Alliance meeting this week? An example is that by SEC and RevCom denying ratification of 802.11g, you are preventing huge WLAN market segments from moving to purchase this equipment. The enterprise market segments tends to wait until the IEEE and Wi-Fi say it is ratified and certified, respectively. If you deny them this at this time, they will likely experience another one quarter loss in this marketing taking off. If you do vote against 802.11g moving forward, I encourage you to make sure you do so based on facts and not allegations.
I respectfully request that affirmative voters
reconsider and change their votes to disapprove on leaving 802.11g on
the RevCom agenda.
I hope that my comments have shed some new light on the situation, and I hope that those members that are concerned can now rest easy and help maintain the value of the products by approving 802.11g. I request that all SEC members vote affirmative and move 802.11g forward.
Mr. Grow, Mr. Frazier and other SEC members, I will spend as much time as needed to explain all the details of process that 802.11g has followed and why I believe the procedures and been followed and why I believe that no one has been disenfranchised. I am available by e-mail and by phone (214) 480-2344.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Matthew B. Shoemake, Ph.D. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Phone: 214-480-2344 Fax: 972-761-5963
IEEE 802.11 Task Group G Chairperson
IEEE 802.11 Task Group N Chairperson Elect