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

RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC MOTION +++ Motion to Forward 15.2 D9 to RevCom




I think I already voted on this, but in case
I didn't ... APPROVE.

Carl


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 5:03 PM
> To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC MOTION +++ Motion to Forward 15.2 D9 to
> RevCom
> 
> 
> 
> Approve.
> 
> Roger
> 
> At 6:20 PM -0400 03/04/17, Paul Nikolich wrote:
> >Dear SEC,
> >
> >This is a 14 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the 
> >below SEC motion to authorize forwarding 802.15.2 D9 to RevCom.
> >Moved by Bob Heile, Seconded by Stuart Kerry
> >
> >The email ballot opens on Thursday April 17, 2003 6:30PM EDT and 
> >closes Thursday May 1, 2003 6:30PM EDT.
> >
> >Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector with a CC directly 
> >to me (<mailto:p.nikolich@ieee.org>p.nikolich@ieee.org).
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >--Paul Nikolich
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Bob Heile" <<mailto:bheile@ieee.org>bheile@ieee.org>
> >To: <<mailto:p.nikolich@ieee.org>p.nikolich@ieee.org>
> >Cc: <<mailto:stuart@ok-brit.com>stuart@ok-brit.com>; 
> ><<mailto:Stuart.Kerry@philips.com>Stuart.Kerry@philips.com>; 
> ><<mailto:shell@symbol.com>shell@symbol.com>;
> ><<mailto:david.cypher@nist.gov>david.cypher@nist.gov>; "bob Heile" 
> ><<mailto:bheile@ieee.org>bheile@ieee.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 7:08 AM
> >Subject: Move to Forward 15.2 D9 to RevCom
> >
> >
> >>  Paul
> >>
> >>  I would like to start a 10 day SEC email Letter Ballot.
> >>
> >>  Having successfully completed Sponsor Ballot, Move to 
> Forward 802.15.2
> >>  Draft 9 to RevCom.
> >>
> >>  Supporting documentation has been issued in previous 
> emails to the SEC.
> >>
> >>  moved:  Bob Heile
> >>  second:  Stuart Kerry
> >>
> >>
> >>  Bob Heile, Ph.D
> >>  Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal 
> Area Networks
> >>  Chair, ZigBee Alliance
> >>  11 Louis Road
> >>  Attleboro, MA  02703   USA
> >>  Phone: 508-222-1393
> >>  Mobile: 781-929-4832
> >>  Fax:     508-222-0515
> >>  email:   <mailto:bheile@ieee.org>bheile@ieee.org
> >>
> >
> >Supporting Documentation:
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Bob Heile
> >To: <mailto:stds-802-sec@ieee.org>stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> >Cc: <mailto:shell@symbol.com>shell@symbol.com ; 
> ><mailto:david.cypher@nist.gov>david.cypher@nist.gov
> >Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 6:10 PM
> >Subject: [802SEC] Report on 15.2 Recirculation Ballot
> >
> >
> >The 15.2 Recirculation ballot closed on April 15. The results were:
> >
> >1. This ballot has met the 75% returned ballot requirement.
> >66 eligible people in this ballot group.
> >48 affirmative votes
> >1 negative votes with comments
> >0 negative votes without comments
> >7 abstention votes
> >=====
> >56 votes received = 84% returned
> >12% abstention
> >2. The 75% affirmation requirement is being met.
> >48 affirmative votes
> >1 negative votes with comments
> >=====
> >49 votes = 97% affirmative
> >
> >We received one new affirmative and one of the no voters 
> changed their vote
> >to affirmative.  The one remaining no vote was from the 
> previous ballot and
> >was ruled then as not a valid technical comment and made part of the
> >recirculation. (copy below) There has been no response from 
> that voter.
> >
> >Given that there are no new no votes and no changes required 
> to the draft,
> >I will be making a motion to the SEC, via a 10 day letter ballot,  to
> >forward Draft 9 to RevCom in time for the May 2 submission deadline.
> >
> >
> >Comment received on Draft 8 and recirculated with Draft 9:
> >
> >CommenterName CommentType CommentID Clause Subclause Page Line
> >O'Farrell, Timothy      T               8               D       89
> >Comment
> >The source code of Appendix D is provided without a flow 
> diagram schematic.
> >To enhance understanding and accessibility of the program 
> material a flow
> >diagram schematic is required.
> >SuggestedRemedy
> >Include a flow diagram schematic of the source code 
> presented in Appendix D.
> >Response
> >REJECT.
> >The BRC does not know of any requirements to supply a flow 
> diagram for code,
> >therefore one will not be created and included. BRC does not 
> consider this a
> >technical comment on the draft, since it relates to a 
> informative annex.
>