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


Members of 802.11,

I would urge all members to review the 802.11 WG Operating rules, section 
2.8.2, sited by Bob O'Hara, regarding the present TGG Draft email ballot 
before they vote in this important issue on whether to go to WG Letter 
Ballot on the draft.  I would stress that all members should understand and 
interpret this section themselves. As chair I am seeking the viewpoint of 
the members from the minority and majority stance before going forward with 
any action. Hopefully with a consensus view. I would also ask members to 
refer to 802 Operating Rules as well.

The other thing that has become clear is, OUR rules are not clear, and need 
urgent revision to make them workable, and become understood by all. The 
other area is the definition of a quorum at Interim meetings, and the 
empowerment motions we are using for work to be completed at interims. This 
latter area has been raised many times at the 802 SEC, and needs to be 
resolved promptly. Which I have raised once again with the 802 Chair, and 
urge him to address this early on in the week at the St. Louis plenary meeting.

Finally, this current ballot LB# 31 began on Friday, January 25th, 2002 and 
WILL END at 2359 CST on January 30,2002. So I empress upon you all to vote 
before the close.

Stuart J. Kerry

At 04:50 PM 1/26/02 -0800, Bob O'Hara wrote:

>As I pointed out at the closing plenary (and will no doubt be pilloried for
>mentioning here) the TGg draft does not meet the requirements set forth in
>our operating rules to be sent for letter ballot.  The operating rules state
>the following:
>2.8.2 Draft Standard Balloting Requirements
>Before a draft is submitted to WG letter ballot it shall in addition have
>met the following requirements:
>a)    It must be complete with no open technical issues.
>e)   It must be approved for submittal to WG ballot at the 802.11 WG closing
>It is clear that the draft created at the interim meeting does not meet
>either of these criteria.
>The first criterion is debatable.  Some may consider that the lack of a
>PICS, of MIB additions, and of changes to the MAC state machine that
>correspond to the changes to the MAC proposed in the text do not constitute
>"incompleteness".  I disagree.  You are asked by this motion to judge the
>technical completeness, not technical correctness of the draft.  Each of the
>items listed here would require a 75% approval to include in the draft.
>They are therefore technical.  Their lack in the draft makes it incomplete.
>Look at the 802.11b supplement to the 802.11 standard fro an example of what
>is required to be complete.
>You will be told that "this is the way it has been done before.  Look at
>802.11b, it is still not correct, we just had to do that corrigendum thing."
>This is a red herring, attempting to make you look away from the real issue.
>The corrigendum has to do with CORRECTNESS, not COMPLETENESS.
>You, as a voting member of 802.11, are being asked to make a significant
>investment of your time to conduct a full technical review of a draft
>standard, at the risk of losing your voting rights if you do not respond.
>It is incumbent on the task group creating this draft to have completed its
>work, to the best of its ability and knowledge, before asking you to accept
>this obligation.  It is my opinion that they have not completed their work.
>It was stated in the January closing plenary that the editor "was working on
>the MIB text".  Obviously, the task group knows the draft is not complete,
>if the editor is working on text creation.
>The second criterion is not debatable.  This draft was not approved at any
>802.11 WG closing plenary.  Even if the plenary in November "empowered" the
>action proposed by this motion, it did so in violation of its own operating
>rules.  This draft did not exist in November and was in no way "approved" at
>that time.  This draft also was not approved in the closing plenary of the
>802.11 WG in January.
>Contrary to the statements made in the email announcing this ballot, there
>ARE certain procedures required to forward a draft to WG letter ballot.
>There are very good reasons for the existence of these procedures.
>Therefore because I am certain that this motion will not be withdrawn even
>though it violates our operating rules, I ask that you vote against the
>  -Bob O'Hara
>-----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

Bob Heile, Ph.D
Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
Chair, ZigBee Alliance
11 Louis Road
Attleboro, MA  02703
Phone: 508-222-1393
Mobile: 781-929-4832
Fax: 	    508-222-0515
Pager: 800-759-8888  PIN 1109355