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

[802SEC] +++EC Ballot+++IEEE802.20.2 Draft 1.0 forwarding to sponsor ballot - CLOSES MAY 9th 2009

Dear EC Members,

This is an update on the current vote count on the above ballot. If you have not yet voted I would appreciate your doing that at this time. If you have any questions feel free to contact me.

The current vote count is as follows:

Vote categories:         APP    DIS    ABS    DNV


VC Mat Sherman.                                 DNV

VC Pat Thaler.                                  DNV

ES Buzz Rigsbee.                                DNV

RS James Gilb.                                  DNV

TR John Hawkins.                                DNV

01 Tony Jeffree.                                DNV

03 David Law.                                   DNV

11 Bruce Kraemer.                               DNV

15 Bob Heile.                                   DNV

16 Roger Marks.         APP

17 John Lemon.                                  DNV

18 Mike Lynch.                                  DNV

19 Steve Shellhammer.                           DNV

20 Mark Klerer.         APP

21 Vivek Gupta.                                 DNV

22 Carl Stevenson.      APP

ME Geoff Thompson.       non-voting

TOTALS                                                 3                0               0                           13

Best  regards,

Mark Klerer


Dear EC members

As a  follow-up to my previous e-mail (attached) concerning the approval to advance 802.20.2 to sponsor ballot, Paul has authorized me to initiate a 10-day ballot for the following motion:

"The EC approves forwarding Draft 1.0 of IEEE802.20.2 to Sponsor Ballot."

Moved: Mark Klerer

Seconded: Steve Shellhammer

Start of ballot: 29 April, 2009

End of ballot: 9 May or 24 hours after the last EC member votes.

By way of background and recapitulation of the previous e-mail, on the  WG Letter Ballot of 802.20.2 there was 1 no voter with 2 editorial comments and 1 technical comment.  The two editorial comments, were accepted in principal (i.e. accommodated) and the technical comment was rejected.  Details can be found in the attached spreadsheet.  None of the resolutions to these comments required any changes to the draft and none were made.  The resolution to the comments that were accommodated, were done to the satisfaction of the commenter who was present during the discussions.  Given that no changes were made to the draft, the comment resolutions were all recirculated in a 15 day WG Letter Ballot for approval and for forwarding the draft to Sponsor Ballot.  The result of the recirculation was 16-1-0. The one remaining no vote was by the original commenter on the basis of  the original technical comment.
Best regards,

Mark Klerer

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