Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++ENDS 5 MAY+++ conditional approval: IEEE P802.16-2004/Cor1 to Sponsor Ballot
I'm troubled some by the responses that have very light justification
for rejection and wonder if they will be sufficient for RevCom. One
comment though has me very confused. Comment #106 is "Superceded, See
comment #105", but #105 is "Rejected, The author's representative
requested the comment to be rejected due to lack of harmonization".
That is too many levels of indirection for me to feel comfortable. How
is a comment from person A superceded by a comment from B (I did notice
the similarity of suggested remedy) and consequently effectively is
rejected by request of person C?
Could you explain this better? Perhaps "lack of harmonization" is too
cryptic for me to find a significant reason for rejection.
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Roger B.
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:46 PM
Subject: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++ENDS 5 MAY+++ conditional
approval: IEEE P802.16-2004/Cor1 to Sponsor Ballot
Dear EC Members,
This is a email ballot to make a determination on the motion:
"To grant conditional approval to forward, for Sponsor Ballot, IEEE
P802.16-2004/Cor1, a draft corrigendum to IEEE Std 802.16-2004."
Moved: Roger Marks
Second: Bob O'Hara
The ballot opens 25 May 2005 and closes
5 June 2005 at 11:59 pm ET.
Paul has asked me to conduct this ballot. Please reply to
I would like to make a motion for an electronic EC ballot to grant
conditional approval to forward, for Sponsor Ballot, IEEE
P802.16-2004/Cor1, a draft corrigendum to IEEE Std 802.16-2004. The
conditional approval is requested under Clause 21 of the IEEE 802 P&P.
Bob O'Hara has agreed to second the motion.
The ballot schedule follows:
WG Letter Ballot #17: 11 Feb - 13 Mar 2005
WG Recirc Ballot #17a: 5 Apr - 22 Apr 2005
WG Recirc Ballot #17b: 23 May - 7 Jun 2005
The recirc ballot announcement:
includes the statement: "This ballot is being conducted under the
procedure for conditional approval of the LMSC Policies and Procedures
[IEEE PROJECT 802 LAN MAN STANDARDS COMMITTEE (LMSC) POLICIES AND
The current ballot status is:
96% Approval Ratio (167/174)
81% Return Ratio (179/220)
Details are at <http://ieee802.org//16/maint/ballot17/report17.html>.
The remaining Technical Disapprove comments, and responses, are here:
The comments labeled "IEEE 802.16-05/015r3" in the upper right corner
were submitted in the initial ballot and then recirculated. Those
labeled "IEEE 802.16-05/021r3" were submitted during the first recirc
and are currently being recirculated.
A relevant WG Motion of 5 May 2005 was approved by vote of 64-0 at the
802.16 WG interim: "To accept draft P802.16-2004/Cor1/D2 as modified by
the comment resolutions (IEEE 802.16-05/021r2) and open a Working Group
Confirmation Letter Ballot on that Draft (P802.16-2004/Cor1/D3), and to
request conditional approval to the 802 EC to forward the draft to
I am requesting conditional approval now so that Sponsor Ballot can be
concluded before the July Plenary.
Dr. Roger B. Marks <mailto:email@example.com> +1 303 497 7837
National Institute of Standards and Technology/Boulder, CO, USA
Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.