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



I very much appreciate your response.

My purpose in requesting this information was not to nitpick whether a
quorum was present, but get a better understanding of the breadth of
support for the position statements (guidance, if you will).

I understand that these positions are important to the wireless working
groups and that they must be filed in a timely manner.

Unfortunately in this day of ever present spinmeisters, I have a knee
jerk reaction to anyone telling me how I should view something without
providing me the supporting data.  In this case, phrases like "the fact
that the documents were so overwhelmingly approved by the 3 wireless
WGs" generate such a reaction when not accompanied with the actual votes.

While as I understand the IEEE, IEEE-SA and 802 rules, the 802 SEC can
issue such a position statement as an 802 position without approval of
the working group(s), I disagree that the WG votes are irrelevant.  The
SEC is being asked to take this position at the request of the wireless
WGs and it is relevant for the SEC to understand the breadth of wireless
WG support.

For instance, the 13/3/13 vote of 802.15 on 18-02-005 (Comments on NPRM)
while clearly approving the position by greater than 75% of those voting
approve or disapprove, is not in my opinion "overwhelming approval". 
The fact that I disagree with the "overwhelming approval"
characterization does not mean that I will vote disapprove.  I simply
want the actual vote data so that I can make the judgment for myself.

I will note that you appear to have misunderstood what I was seeking in
my second question.  I was asking for the number of individuals in each
of the WG who have voting rights in that WG, not the number of members
present at the meeting was present when the votes were taken.  While
that information could be used to determine whether a quorum was
present, that was not my goal.  My interest was in determining the
breadth of support relative to all of the voters in each WG.  Again

Best regards,


"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > []On Behalf Of Bill
> > Quackenbush
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:05 PM
> > To: Roger B. Marks;
> > Subject: Re: Regarding Bob's Question ... RE: [802SEC]
> >
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > So how about some simple facts.
> >
> >       What was the vote (approve/disapprove/abstain) in each WG on the
> > motion(s) to approve the two position statements?
> Bill,
> According to the tallies I recorded, these are the votes from .11
> and .15:
> 18-02-002 (Opposition to Pet Recon)
> .11     APP 69  OPP 0           ABS 22
> .15     APP 17  OPP 3           ABS 6
> 18-02-005 (Comments on NPRM)
> .11     APP 55  OPP 0           ABS 6
> .15     APP 13  OPP 3           ABS 13
> Roger reported that .16 approved both documents by
> unanimous voice vote.
> Motions passed in all cases with >75% according to
> these tallies.
> >       What was the numbers of voting members on the roster of
> > voting members for  each WG at the time of the above vote(s)?
> > (hint - the answer is NOT the number of voting members present
> > at the meeting at which the motions were passed).
> Frankly, I don't know ... I did not request a quorum
> call in either .11 or .15 before presenting the motions,
> relying on the fact that the meetings were proceeding
> and votes were taking place on other matters.
> Bob Heile has told me that .15 had a quorum ...
> you've presumably seen Roger's response ...
> I have been unable thusfar to reach Stuart (who
> may have taken some vacation after Sydney?)
> However, again, I would like to stress that WG
> approval is actually *IRRELEVANT* and you can either
> accept the votes as "guidance" or ignore them completely
> and base your judgement on your own review of the
> documents in question.
> FRI, MAY 31 ... and it is ALSO important to note that THAT
> deadline is the result of our request for an extension
> of time so that we COULD file ... to not file now would
> be VERY poor form ("Why did you ask for an extension if
> you weren't going to file anyway?").
> The bottom line is that these documents are NECESSARY
> responses to serious threats to the spectrum that the
> 802 wireless standards rely on, and it is OUR responsibility
> to our membership to respond appropriately to help defend that
> spectrum.
> In other words, I believe that this issue is so clear
> that nobody on the SEC should need the WGs to tell them
> that "This is the right thing to do in terms of representing
> the membership and defending 802 standards."
> There is really not a WG quorum issue here, since
> the SEC is capable of, and should, make an affirmative
> decision on this matter, so let's not get caught up in
> that issue, please.
> Again, I urge you an the remaining members of the SEC
> to PROMPTLY vote APPROVE on the motion to file these
> documents with the FCC.
> If anyone who hasn't voted yet has questions, PLEASE
> feel free to call me at my home office, 610-965-8799,
> or on my cellphone, 610-570-6168.
> Regards,
> Carl
> Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3
> iQA/AwUBPPYwkwK2hSca9giwEQJCeQCeNQov6CxTiFDjd0HzfmbEtPWYPm4AoJ3R
> d6H1kdEfHKHbo1dhgP+dgl1+
> =M6Ik