Dear SEC members,
There was some question as to whether or not the
chair has the authority to extend the ballot duration or what the
proper procedure is to do so, therefore I did not attempt to extend the
ballot. (This is an area that we need clarification
on for future ballots.) Therefore the ballot on the motion to authorize
forwarding the 802.11g draft to RevCom is closed as originally posted.
As of 10AM EDT June06 2003, below is the tentative result (7APP,
4DIS, 1ABS, 1DNV) for the ballot . The final tally will not be posted
until after 10PM EDT June 6, 2003 in order to comply with the SEC rules on
electronic balloting (extract below) to allow for email delivery time.
Please verify that I have captured your vote correctly.
"184.108.40.206 Executive Committee Electronic Balloting
The Chair, or an Executive Committee member designated by the
Chair (usually a Vice Chair), shall determine the duration of the ballot, issue
the ballot by e-mail and tally the votes after the ballot is closed. Executive
Committee voting members shall return their vote and comments by email.
The minimum duration of an electronic ballot shall be 10 days
unless the matter is urgent and requires resolution in less time. Maximum
advance notice is encouraged for all ballots on urgent matters. The tally of
votes shall not be made until at least 24 hours after the close of the ballot to
allow time for delivery of the e-mail votes.
The affirmative vote of a majority of all voting members of the
Executive Committee is required for an electronic ballot to pass."
DIS DNV APP
05 Bill Quackenbush DIS
total: -04- -01-
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 9:51
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++
Motion: Authorize Forwarding of the 802.11g draft to RevCom
At 09:31 PM 5/21/03 -0400, Paul Nikolich
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
by Bob Heile
The email ballot opens
on Wednesday May 21st, 2003 10PM ET and closes Thursday June 5th, 2003 10PM
Please direct your responses to
the SEC reflector with a CC directly to me (email@example.com).
- Paul Nikolich
SUPPORTING INFORMATION / DOCUMENTATION
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
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
The 75% affirmation requirement is
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 session (May
Move to Forward IEEE
802.11g Draft 8.2 to the IEEE 802 SEC and to RevCom for Final
Task Group G: 26 / 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 (Monteban).
Tim O'Farrell, Supergold
Tim voted NO on the first Sponsor Ballot, i.e. Draft 6.1 of IEEE
802.11g. We have not been able to contact him sense. E-mails
were sent on both recirculation ballots requesting his response. At
the April 2003 session of 802.11g, multiple attempts were made to contact
Tim to no avail. On the first recirculation ballot, Tim provided five
comments. One comments was editorial, and it was accepted. The
other four comments were technical. Tim had two comments related to
removing 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 comments were editorial. Mike
currently maintains his NO vote based on previously circulated
- Summary for Mike
o Voted "No" on Draft 8.2 based on previously submitted technical
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 vote base on previously circulated
- Summary for James
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
o Cast a "Yes" vote with two comments
o Both comments were editorial
o Both comments were rejected
Resolutions are included in Doc#: 11-03-381 rev.7 as posted 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 was 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 the upcoming meeting in June.
Stuart J. Kerry
Chair, IEEE 802.11
1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
United States of America.
Ph : +1 (408) 474-7356
+1 (408) 474-7247
Cell: +1 (408) 348-3171
Bob Heile, Ph.D
Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
Chair, ZigBee Alliance
11 Louis Road
Attleboro, MA 02703 USA
**************** NOTICE ****************
The information contained in this e-mail message and any attachments may
be complete garbage. Unauthorized use, disclosure, or
copying is strictly up to you. If you received this message in error,
please send it to the right