[802-LMSC] Appeal of 902.15 WG Leadership ruling.
Dear Beth
Please add an item to the agenda
DT Appeal of 802.15 WG Leadership ruling 10 min
My intention is to convene an Executive Session of the IEEE 802 LMSC to discuss and render a ruling on this issue. I will announce, on a separate email, a meeting on 10/20, noon PDT for 2 hours maximum on a separate email. I have copied the correspondence below, removing identities where relevant (we know who the WG 15 chair is, for example).
Text of the appeal------------------------------------------------------------On September 1, 2026, the 802.15 WG entertained a motion to reject unresolved technical comments on the initial 802.15.4ab SA ballot, for which the 802.15 WG chair (Clint Powell) ruled that it is treated as a procedural motion (50% threshold). During the call, this ruling was challenged. We appealed this ruling on September 4. The appeal was considered by the 802.15 leadership and rejected on September 16. A recirculation was started on September 4.
The appeal was rejected "since the working group motion did not propose a technical resolution, but stated that consensus on a resolution could not be reached, this does not fall under the scope for a three-quarters vote.", while "comment resolutions resulting in technical changes to the draft or responses which state a technical reason for rejecting should have a 75% approval.".
The related motion is as follows:
Procedural Motion
Move to reject all unresolved comments (those with a Disposition Status field showing as blank) in document 15-26-0090-36-04ab, and changing the Disposition to REJECTED and the Disposition Detail to “The CRG could not reach consensus on the changes necessary to address the comment”.
Result: Y/N/A: 27/13/3 Motion passes (43 votes total)
We believe that treating this motion as procedural violates the 802.15 rules (operation manual) in doc.: IEEE 802.15-10-0235-35, which says:
5.5 Comment Resolution Group Operation
The CRG may vote to approve comment resolutions (75% approval required) during WG sessions, ad hoc meetings, or telecons in which quorum is achieved.
We read this to mean that resolutions can only be approved with a 75% threshold, which means that debate must continue and resolutions tested until one is found to pass that threshold. (The "may vote" applies to when, but the "75% approval required" is the threshold.) Without that approval, the comment remains unresolved and a disposition cannot be entered. The approval rate for the WG motion was 68%.
A similar motion failed before in the 802.15.4ab CRG:
15-26-0312-04-04ab-tg4ab-meeting-slides-july-2026 -- Motion #15 on slide 65:
Result: Y/N/A: 25/14/1 Motion fails (40 votes total)
The result of this CRG motion is also recorded in:
15-26-0277-04-04ab-p802-15-4ab-comment-resolution-motions -- Motion 15
Result: 64% approval
In addition to the requirement that comments shall be resolved with 75% approval, motioning comments at 75% and subsequently at 50% appears inconsistent.
The rate of resolved comments has stalled after the Montreal meeting, because the tough ones are the final ones. There have been fruitful discussions in the background on how to resolve these. The essence is that there is compromise on both sides, while doing justice to the majority/minority positions. The minority is aware that they can not have all of their wishes fulfilled, but there needs to be movement by the majority as well, so that 75% approval can be reached. Only a few votes would need to be swayed.
A remark was made during the 802.15 WG meeting on September 1 that the minority can resubmit their comments on the recirculation. However, they will lose one cycle of recirculation, and recycled comments will at some point become out of scope. Also, it is easy to see how each subsequent recirculation will reject their comments in a similar fashion, by ruling them procedural. We believe this violates the rights of the minority.
We would like to request the LMSC to reverse the September 1 ruling that the WG motion was procedural, the motion therefore failed.
We would also like to request the LMSC to clarify the applicable voting threshold for comment resolution, whether the threshold depends on the type of the resolution, and whether the same comments can be treated under different voting thresholds during the process. We observe that these aspects are not addressed in the rejection of the appeal.
This appeal to the LMSC is submitted within 30 days of the September 1 WG15 chair ruling and within 30 days of the September 16 WG15 leadership rejection of the appeal.
Could you please confirm the receipt of this appeal within one working day.
With kind regards,
<Names of 10 participants, I suspect all are voting members of IEEE 802.15 WG>
Appendix 1: Rejection of appeal to WG chair
From: Clint Powell
Date: Thursday, September 17, 2026 at 04:42 (EU time, September 16 in US)
To: <lead appellant>
Cc: <various individuals>Subject: RE: Appeal to ruling a WG motion as procedural
<Appellant>
Thank you for your email. As you know objections and appeals are some of the cornerstone elements to a good and healthy SDO body.
The IEEE 802.15 WG Leadership met and reviewed your appeal. We agree that comment resolutions resulting in technical changes to the draft or responses which state a technical reason for rejecting should have a 75% approval. However, since the working group motion did not propose a technical resolution, but stated that consensus on a resolution could not be reached, this does not fall under the scope for a three-quarters vote. Therefore, we agree that the WG Chair was acting consistent with the responsibilities of the chair to call this as a Procedural Motion.
In the case of the Motion 15 in the CRG, technical reasons, requiring a technical motion, were given for the rejections of each of the comment responses and those and the motion itself are not similar to the Work Group motion.
After careful review, consideration, and deliberation, and in alignment with the above, the WG15 Leadership Team is denying your appeal.
Per related P&P rules you may now elevate your appeal to the IEEE 802 LMSC, if you so desire.
Thanks & Best Regards,
Clint
Clint Powell
Managing Director – Wireless IoT Standardization, PWC LLC
IEEE 802.15 WG Chair & IEEE 802 LMSC
IEEE 802.15 TG4ab (NG-UWB) - Vice Chair
CSA IEEE 802.15.4 PHY/MAC Advisory Group - Chair
CSA Aliro CSG Certification Policy & Procedure - Tiger Team Lead
Mobile/WhatsApp: 480 586-8457
Email: cpowell@xxxxxxxx
Appendix 2: Appeal to WG chair
From: <Appellant>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 9:32 AM
To: <WG 15 chair>
Cc: <various individuals>
Subject: Appeal to ruling a WG motion as procedural
Hi Clint,
We would like to appeal the ruling to consider the motion of last Tuesday's (September 1) WG group meeting as procedural:
Procedural Motion
Move to reject all unresolved comments (those with a Disposition Status field showing as blank) in document 15-26-0090-36-04ab, and changing the Disposition to REJECTED and the Disposition Detail to “The CRG could not reach consensus on the changes necessary to address the comment”.
Result: Y/N/A: 27/13/3 Motion passes (43 votes total)
We believe this ruling violates the 802.15 rules (operation manual) in doc.: IEEE 802.15-10-0235-35, which says:
5.5 Comment Resolution Group Operation
The CRG may vote to approve comment resolutions (75% approval required) during WG sessions, ad hoc meetings, or telecons in which quorum is achieved.
We read this to mean that resolutions can only be approved with a 75% threshold, which means that debate must continue and resolutions tested until one is found to pass that threshold. (The "may vote" applies to when, but the "75% approval required" is the threshold.) Without that approval, the comment remains unresolved and a disposition cannot be entered. The approval rate for the WG motion was 68%.
A similar motion failed before in the CRG:
15-26-0312-04-04ab-tg4ab-meeting-slides-july-2026 -- Motion #15 on slide 65:
Result: Y/N/A: 25/14/1 Motion fails (40 votes total)
The result of this CRG motion is also recorded in:
15-26-0277-04-04ab-p802-15-4ab-comment-resolution-motions -- Motion 15
Result: 64% approval
In addition to the requirement that comments shall be resolved with 75% approval, this also creates the impression that if one chair fails to reach 75%, the next chair changes the voting threshold to 50% to get the motion passed.
The rate of resolved comments has stalled after the Montreal meeting, because the tough ones are the final ones. There have been fruitful discussions in the background on how to resolve these. The essence is that there is compromise on both sides, while doing justice to the majority/minority positions. The minority is aware that they can not have all of their wishes fulfilled, but there needs to be movement by the majority as well, so that 75% approval can be reached. Only a few votes would need to be swayed.
A remark was made during the WG meeting on Tuesday that the minority can resubmit their comments on the recirculation. However, they will lose one cycle of recirculation, and recycled comments will at some point become out of scope. Also, it is easy to see how each subsequent recirculation will reject their comments in a similar fashion, by ruling them procedural. We believe this violates the rights of the minority.
With kind regards,
<list of 10 participants, likely voting members>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Gilb
IEEE 802 LMSC Chair
AK6AI, Amateur Extra
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-LMSC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-LMSC&A=1