| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
_______________________________
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:
stuart.kerry@philips.com
_______________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob
O'Hara [mailto:bob@bstormnetworks.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003
11:58
To: Paul Nikolich; IEEE802
Cc: Matthew Sherman;
stuart@ok-brit.com; Matthew B. Shoemake
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC
EMAIL BALLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize conditional forwarding of P802.11g/D6.1 to
Sponsor Ballot
Importance: High
Stuart,
Would you please
post the actual wording of the motion, as passed in the closing plenary session
of the 802.11 January 2003 meeting? I believe that there were several
conditional statements in that motion that indicated how the task group would
handle the results of the currently progressing WG recirculation ballot.
These statements may have a bearing on how the present motion is
perceived.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul
Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 25,
2003 8:48 AM
To: IEEE802
Cc: Matthew Sherman;
stuart@ok-brit.com; Matthew B. Shoemake
Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC
EMAIL BALLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize conditional forwarding of P802.11g/D6.1 to
Sponsor Ballot
Dear
SEC,
This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination
on the below SEC motion to conditionally forward IEEEE P802.11g/D6.1 to LMSC
Sponsor Ballot, moved by Stuart Kerry, seconded by Mat Sherman.
The email ballot opens on Saturday January 25
12noon EST and closes Tuesday February 4 12noon EST.
Please direct
your responses to the SEC reflector and to Matthew Shoemake, chair of the
802.11g task group.
Regards,
--Paul Nikolich
<?fontfamily><?param
Arial><?smaller>
Subject: SEC
Motion: Conditionally forward P802.11g/D6.1 for Sponsor
Ballot.
Moved: Stuart Kerry Second: Matthew
Sherman
MOTION: To conditionally forward IEEE P1802.11g/D6.1
("Draft Ammendment for Further Higher data rate extension in the 2.4GHz band")
for Sponsor Ballot.
Explanation:
The Working Group
802.11g Letter Ballot 50 ("To forward IEEE P802.11g/D5.1 for Sponsor
Ballot") ran from November 27, 2002 to January 8,
2003.
The results were:
Approve: 256
Disapprove: 34 Approval Ratio: 88% [75% required]
Abstain:
18 Ballots: 308 Elligble
Voters:321 Return Ratio: 96% [50%
required]
Comments (no votes) : 185
The Ballot Resolution Committee met January 13-17th, and as a result
several voters confirmed they would change their votes based on D6.1. The
updated vote tally is as
follows:<?/smaller><?/fontfamily>
<?fontfamily><?param
Arial><?smaller>Approve: 281
Disapprove: 9 Approval Ratio: 97% [75% required]
Abstain:
18 Ballots: 308 Elligble
Voters:321 Return Ratio: 96% [50%
required]
Comments (unresolved no votes): 57
Responses to the
comments developed by a Ballot Resolution Committee, and the comments,
responses and draft P802.11g/D6.1 are in the process of being recirculated
(January 20, 2003 to February 6, 2003).
For a full report of the
Letter Ballot, see the attached Excel Spreadsheet
* Comments that support
the remaining disapprove votes and Working Group responses.
The NO
comments are contained in the attached spread sheet. There are 57 total
comments. Of these comments Task Group G counter 29 of them and rejected 28 of
them. There are many duplicate comments, and they have all been included for
completeness.
* Remaining schedule for balloting and comment resolution
if new no votes are received
These will be handled (if necessary) at the
March Plenary session (March 10-14 2003).
* Additional
Information
IEEE 802.11 document 11-02-714 tracks the progress of 802.11g
voting. The document is attached.
* Clarifying Questions
What
didn't IEEE 802.11 ask for conditional approval at the ExCom meeting in November
2002?
At the November 2002 meeting, the results of Letter Ballot 50 were
not back yet, so the requiremetns to introduce the motion to ExCom could not be
met at that time.
What's the harm in waiting until the March 2003 session
to vote on this?
There is enough time between the January 2003 session
and the March 2003 session to do a Working Group Recirculation Ballot and a
Sponsor Ballot and have the results back by the March 2003 session. Doing so
will allow IEEE 802.11g to make quick progress. Waiting until the March 2003
session may delay IEEE 802.11g at least two
months.<?/smaller><?/fontfamily>