1. You haven't provided the required
a. There is no schedule
for the recirculation ballot. All the package says is the
recirculation must complete one week before RevCom meets. How
about some actual dates that give us confidence that the LMSC 15 day
recirculation period has been remembered, and that the ballot will have
been opened by the RevCom submittal deadline as their conventions
b. It looks like you have
provided a complete comment report, nice to point at but not what is
requested. It isn't my job to filter through the comments to see
which ones are linked to negative ballots. I expect a separate
unresolved negative comment report.
2. There is confusing and unnecessary info to
distract EC members. Actually the only critical information in the
Procedure 10 presentation is slide 9.
a. I find
inclusion of the WG/LB ballot stuff in the procedure 10 presentation
confusing. The only thing that matters for RevCom submission is
the Sponsor Ballot process/results as required in the procedure 10
bullets. Move LB info to supplementary material rather than
leading with it.
b. Slide 9 -- I don't
need to be confused by "conditionally change their vote to yes".
They are either yes or no at this moment. If you don't have an
email flipping the vote (no conditions), don't promise a higher approval
percentage. If you have the email or some other kind of sign-off
for a ballot flip, be prepared to produce it if asked.. You
will be able to report conditional flips (e.g., I want to look at it in
the draft during recirculation, but I should be satisfied) to us when
you report the results of the D1.6
items in the Procedure 10 numbered list are something you report to us
after the D1.6 recirculation to justify leaving the submittal on the
RevCom agenda. Yes you need your own check list now for
project management, but the EC should be focused on the facts, not
speculations about what will happen with
draft is nice but not required for Procedure 10 EC review. Having
it though and seeing that there were changes to the title, I compared it
to the PAR. Now you get to explain on the RevCom submission why
the document title balloted and the PAR do not agree (e.g., why did you
delete "LAN", the "Amendment" thing is obviously for adaptation to
current publication style).
3. Slide 10, item 4 comment is
prejudicial. The number of comments in the comment report is
sufficient justification that comment resolution has been largely
completed. To indicate a prejudice to not make any changes in
response to D1.6 1st SB recirculation comments that you haven't
seen isn't good.
the instructions given to 802.11 at the Portland ExCom Closing Plenary
meeting I am enclosing the information regarding agenda item 5.12 - 802.11j for consideration for approval,
to forward to RevCom under
procedure 10 of the LMSC P&P (now paragraph 21 - revised July 16,
I know that I may be asking a
lot of you but, please could you kindly review the complete package
before I send this to Paul for the ExCom motion, which I will of
course incorporate any valuable suggestions of yours before sending to
him. I would like to send the pack by Thursday this week, so an early
consideration would be very much
Attached is the
complete package of P802.11j documentation sent to me by the Task
Group (Sheung Li) which I have reviewed and amended accordingly,
1) Procedure 10 Presentation,
including vote tallies for 802.11
2) P802.11j D1.6 clean draft, expecting no further
3) P802.11j D1.6 redlined draft.
4) Sponsor Ballot comment resolution
document, indicating resolutions.
believe that item 1) above is the executive summary that the ExCom
members are looking for.
Carl Stevenson has
agreed to second the ExCom motion, particularly in the light of
Paul's stance regarding the News/Closing reports, should be cleared by
tonight with regards to 802.11.
Thanks for your help in
Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG
1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
San Jose, CA
United States of America.
Ph : +1 (408)
Fax : +1 (408) 474-5343
Cell: +1 (408)