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
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
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
c. The 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
d. The 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.
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, 2004).
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 ExCom members.
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)