|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
With appologies to those that may be getting this material twice. Arnie -------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- From: firstname.lastname@example.org To: email@example.com Subject: Forwarding 802.20 Draft to sponsor Ballot Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:59:17 +0000 Ballot to Forward the 802.20 Draft Standard to Sponsor Ballot All: The 802.20 Working Group completed a review and consideration of the comments received as a result of the last recirculation of the 802.20 draft. The Working Group, has successfully processed 2051 comments and has satisfactorily resolved 99.7% of all received comments. The statistics attendant to this recirculation are: Approval rate 86.67%, Abstention rate 28.5% and a response rate of 77.78%. To put these numbers in context; of the 27 members in the 802.20 voting group we have 13 Affirmative, 2 Negative and 6 abstentions. This is a count of 21. We also have 6 entities that have not responded to the ballot for the second time. When all potential companies were solicited to join the ballot pool these six companies said that they were interested and provided a name for their designated voter. Since that time they have not responded to the initial ballot, the recirculation ballot nor have they attended any of the 802.20 meetings. The two negative votes bear some discussion. The Nokia Siemens Networks negative vote has one associated comment (comment #3). This negative comment was previously received on the first round of balloting. The Working Group feels that adequate due diligence has been performed in regards to this negative balloterís comment. This comment objects to the inclusion of 3GPP2 data in the 802.20 draft. This material was contributed by Motorola and was approved by the Working Group. The chair believes that this vote and comment is not responsive to the Letter Ballot rules because it is non specific in character and because it is contrary to the previous decision and vote of the 802.20 Working Group. The negative vote from Broadcom has 5 remaining unsatisfied negative comments out of an intial set of 75 comments. A review of these comments (#s 5, 153, 154, 158 and 159 in the database) will show that they generally have not provided a specific proposal as regards the change necessary to change the no vote to an affirmative vote. The Broadcom comments are not new and the Working Group has spent considerable time working with the Broadcom representatives in order to determine how to fix the draft in a way that would/could satisfy them. The thread of these negative comments date back to a time of the practice ballots before this Letter Ballot was begun. The Letter Ballot rules require that the submitter of a negative ballot provide a specific solution to their concern which would change their negative vote to a positive. This level of specificity has not been forthcoming from Broadcom. It should be noted that approximately 70 negative comments by Broadcom were su! ccessfu lly resolved to their satisfaction. The working group feels that adequate due diligence has been performed in regards to this negative balloters' comments. It should also be noted that through the process of consensus and compromise previously negative votes by Motorola and Ericsson have been changed to Affirmative votes during this recirculation ballot. The comments and comment resolution package are provided for your attention and review, they can be found at http://ieee802.org/20/802_LMSC.html (no password is required to access the associated files). I have also attached the set of slides that I plan to use at the Friday EC plenary to request the UCEC vote to forward this draft to Sponsor Ballot. ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
Greenspan Sponsor Ballot approval 80220.ppt
Min Perf Broadcom.doc