Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++ENDS 12 AUG+++ Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j



>Dear EC members,
>As per the decision at the July closing EC
>meeting Stuart Kerry has made the below motion
>to forward 802.11j to RevCom under the
>conditional approval process.  See the motion
>The ballot duration will be 10 days.  It opens
>4pm edt 2 August and closes 4pm edt 12 August.
>--Paul Nikolich
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <>
>To: <mailto:p.nikolich@IEEE.ORG>p.nikolich@IEEE.ORG
>; <>
>; <>
>Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 2:37 PM
>Subject: Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic
>Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j
>May I formally request that the Proposed 2nd 802
>ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding
>the motion regarding 802.11j for conditional
>approval is started today as a 10 Day EC Ballot.
>Moved by: Kerry
>Seconded by: Sherman
>Having it as a 10 Day would mean that it opened
>today and closed August 12, 2004 to enable it to
>be approved and loaded onto the RevCom agenda by
>their agenda closing date of August 13.
>/ Stuart
>Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:37
>To: Grow, Bob
>Cc: Stuart Kerry
>Subject: Re: FW: Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom
>Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding
>Thank you very much for your second review.  Attached is the updated package.
>Grow, Bob wrote:
>>From: Grow, Bob
>>Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:28 AM
>>To: 'Paul Nikolich'
>>Subject: RE: Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic
>>Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j
>>It looks fine to me, my only suggestion was to
>>add a "(formerly Procedure 10)" to the title
>>slide for those of us that might not remember
>>we approved new rules a couple week ago.  I
>>believe they will need a 10 day EC ballot.
>>From: Paul Nikolich
>>Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 12:25 PM
>>To: Grow, Bob
>>Subject: Fw: Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic
>>Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j
>>Did you review and comment on the attached
>>information?  I can't remember or find a
>>response from you.  I will not initiate an EC
>>email ballot until I get the OK from you.
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <>Sheung Li
>>To: <>Grow, Bob
>>Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 10:21 PM
>>Subject: Re: Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic
>>Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j
>>Thank you very much for reviewing these
>>materials so quickly.  Respectfully noting the
>>scope of your feedback, I have since consulted
>>Stuart along with David, Andy, and Yvette at
>>IEEE staff and the 802.1 conditional approval
>>materials from the July ExCom meeting.
>>The presentation is now focused and consistent
>>with the others.  Please let us know if it
>>addresses your concerns.
>>Addressing each of your points.
>>1.  Required information
>>    a. The exact recirculation ballot dates are included
>>    b. D1.5 unaccepted disapprove comments only
>>(per LMSC P&P Jul 04 pg 40, para. 3) are
>>2.  Unnecessary information
>>    a.  Supporting material has been moved to the back
>>    b.  Only current status reported.  Conditional responses removed
>>    c.  Checklist and all speculation removed
>>    d.  Revert to use of PAR title.   The
>>changes in the usage of "LAN," "IEEE," and
>>Amendment Number in the title were all made to
>>conform to the current SA publication standard
>>(as used in 802.11i, 2003 corrigendum, etc.)
>>Per RevCom requirements, the exact PAR title
>>except for the mispelled "Telecommunications"
>>is now used.  IEEE production staff will make
>>necessary conformance changes.
>>3.  Prejudicial comments
>>    Speculation on future changes removed
>>Grow, Bob wrote:
>>>1.  You haven't provided the required information.
>>>     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 require.
>>>     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
>>>     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 D1.6.
>>>     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.
>>>Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 6:15 PM
>>>To: Grow, Bob
>>>Subject: Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic
>>>Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j
>>>Bob ,
>>>Per 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, 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 appreciated.
>>>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, including;
>>>1) Procedure 10 Presentation, including vote
>>>tallies for 802.11 ExCom members.
>>>2) P802.11j D1.6 clean draft, expecting no further technical changes.
>>>3) P802.11j D1.6 redlined draft.
>>>4) Sponsor Ballot comment resolution document, indicating resolutions.
>>>I 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
>>>Thanks for your help in advance,
>>>Stuart J. Kerry
>>>Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG
>>>Philips Semiconductors, Inc.
>>>1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
>>>San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
>>>United States of America.
>>>Ph  : +1 (408) 474-7356
>>>Fax : +1 (408) 474-5343
>>>Cell: +1 (408) 348-3171
>>>email: <>
>---------- This email is sent from the 802
>Executive Committee email reflector. This list
>is maintained by Listserv.
>Attachment converted: Little
>Al:11-04-0854-03-0000-S#10FCD3.ppt (SLD3/PPT3)
>Attachment converted: Little
>Al:11-04-0703-03-000j-p#10FCD4.xls (XLS4/«IC»)

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.