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



I believe that the motion to forward a draft to letter ballot in 802.3 has 
normally been considered technical rather than procedural. The rationale is
that the vote asks for a judgement on whether the draft is technically 
complete enough to go to ballot.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart Kerry [] 
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:04 PM
Importance: High

To 802.11 Colleagues-

Due to an unfortunate set of circumstances, the closing plenary of 802.11
was adjourned prematurely.   A more careful review of the minutes from the
Austin meeting revealed that a motion was passed to empower the working
group to issue the 11g draft at the January 2002 meeting.  Procedurally, no
further vote was required, but in the confusion, this was not realized until
it was too late.  The exact wording of that motion is: "Move to empower
802.11 to issue a WG letter ballot on the 802.11g draft at the January 2002
interim session" (59,0,2).

Following these events I called a meeting to discuss the issues.  It was
attended by myself, Harry Worstel, Al Petrick, Vic Hayes, Bob Heile and Paul
Nikolich, chair of 802, on the phone.  The meeting was later joined by
Matthew Shoemake.  Although it was agreed that a letter ballot could be
initiated without further action, based on the Austin motion, I decided it
would be best to initiate a brief  5 day email ballot to gain the
affirmation of the Working Group membership.  Such ballots are within the
chair's prerogative and in discussion with Paul, are consistent with 802
Executive Committee precedence.

The 5 day email ballot will be called LB 31 and consists of the following:

Motion:  Begin a 40 day Working Group letter ballot of TGg Draft  2.1,
starting at noon CST on Jan 31, 2002 and ending at noon CST on March 11,

This email ballot is procedural and will require 50% approval of those
voting yes or no in order to pass .  Based on the current voting roster of
287, a minimum of 144 voters must return ballots.  There can be no more than
30% abstentions of all votes as stated in the 802 rules.

Vote YES, NO, or ABSTAIN.  No comments are required as there will be no
resolution of the no votes.  Because of the brief nature of this ballot, if
for some reason you can not vote, it will not impact your voting rights.

Ballots should be returned to with copies to and 

Please put   LB31-{your last name}-{y,n,a}  in the subject line of your
return email.     example (LB31-Kerry-yes)

This ballot will begin immediately and end at 2359 CST on January 30,2002

We also discussed the balance of business that remained on the agenda.  TGe
had hoped to bring a rules change proposal to the floor. Based on the length
of the TGg discussion,however, it was unlikely we would have had time for it
anyway before the hard stop at noon.  Regardless, the chairs advisory core
will meet next week to review the presentation/interpretation of the Working
Group rules and make a recommendation for action at the opening session in
St. Louis. 

Additionally, Vic was unable to formally secure WG approval on the
Regulatory submissions, but these documents were reviewed and approved in
TGh ( 23,0,2)  and in 802.15 (unanimous consent).  Based on that approval,
it was decided to pass them through to the 802 Executive Committee for final
review and then send them on to their destination without loss of time.

I want to thank you for a very productive week and regret that it ended on a
bit of an unfortunate note.  I believe with these actions we can feel proud
that we have accomplished all that we set out to do even if it was by a
slightly circuitous route. 


Stuart J Kerry