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

Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Motion: Authorize Forwarding of the 802.11g draft to RevCom




Based on the issues raised by Bob Grow and Howard Frazier,

I change my vote to DISAPPROVE.

Thanks,

wlq

Bill Quackenbush wrote:
> 
> APPROVE.
> 
> wlq
> 
> > Paul Nikolich wrote:
> >
> > Dear SEC members,
> >
> > This is a 15 day SEC email ballot to make a determination by an SEC
> > motion to authorize forwarding 802.11g Draft 8.2 to RevCom.
> >
> > Moved by Stuart J. Kerry
> > Seconded by Bob Heile
> >
> > The email ballot opens on Wednesday May 21st, 2003 10PM ET and closes
> > Thursday June 5th, 2003 10PM ET.
> >
> > Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector with a CC directly
> > to me (p.nikolich@ieee.org).
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > - Paul Nikolich
> >
> > SUPPORTING INFORMATION / DOCUMENTATION Below:
> >
> > +++++++++
> >
> > LAST SPONSOR BALLOT RESULTS:
> >
> > Ballot: P802.11g/D8.2 2nd IEEE Recirculation Ballot which Closed
> > 2003-05-14, and obtained a 95% approval.
> >
> > This ballot has met the 75% returned ballot requirement.
> > 96 eligible people in this ballot group.
> > 64 affirmative votes
> > 3 negative votes with comments
> > 0 negative votes without comments
> > 10 abstention votes
> > =====
> > 77 votes received = 80% returned
> > 12% abstention
> >
> > The 75% affirmation requirement is being met.
> > 64 affirmative votes
> > 3 negative votes with comments
> > =====
> > 67 votes = 95% affirmative
> >
> > +++++++++
> >
> > RESULTS OF TASK GROUP G AND 802.11 WG MOTIONS at DALLAS 802.11 session
> > (May 2003):
> >
> > Move to Forward IEEE 802.11g Draft 8.2 to the IEEE 802 SEC and to
> > RevCom for Final Approval
> >
> > Task Group G: 26 / 0 / 0
> > 802.11 WG: 102 / 0 / 2
> >
> > +++++++++
> >
> > SUMMARY OF REMAINING VOTERS ISSUES:
> >
> >         Attached is a summary of status of the three "no" voters
> > (O'Farrell, Moreton, Gilb) and the one new "yes" with comments voter
> > (Monteban).
> >
> > Tim O'Farrell, Supergold
> >
> >         Tim voted NO on the first Sponsor Ballot, i.e. Draft 6.1 of
> > IEEE 802.11g.  We have not been able to contact him sense.  E-mails
> > were sent on both recirculation ballots requesting his response.  At
> > the April 2003 session of 802.11g, multiple attempts were made to
> > contact Tim to no avail.  On the first recirculation ballot, Tim
> > provided five comments.  One comments was editorial, and it was
> > accepted.  The other four comments were technical.  Tim had two
> > comments related to removing optional functionality, which were both
> > rejected.  Tim also had two comments related to ACR which were both
> > rejected.
> >
> > -        Summary for Tim O'Farrell
> > o        Voted "No" on first sponsor ballot
> > o        Has not voted on last of the recirculation ballots
> > o        Attempts at contact have failed
> >
> > Mike Moreton, Synad
> >
> >         Mike voted NO WITH COMMENTS on Draft 8.2.  All of Mike
> > comments were editorial.  Mike currently maintains his NO vote based
> > on previously circulated comments.
> >
> > -        Summary for Mike Moreton
> > o        Voted "No" on Draft 8.2 based on previously submitted
> > technical comments
> > o        Submitted no new technical comments on Draft 8.2
> > o        Submitted 7 editorial comments
> > o        All editorial comments were rejected
> >
> > James Gilb, Appairent
> >
> >         James also voted NO WITH COMMENTS on Draft 8.2.  All of James
> > comments have previously been circulated.  James maintains his NO vote
> > base on previously circulated comments.
> >
> > -        Summary for James Gilb
> > o        Voted "No" on Draft 8.2
> > o        Submitted 14 technical and editorial comments on Draft 8.2
> > o        None of the technical comments are new
> > o        All comments were rejected
> >
> > Leo Monteban, Agere
> >
> >         Leo voted YES WITH COMMENTS on Draft 8.2.  Leo submitted two
> > editorial comments.  Both editorial comments were found to be
> > non-substantive by IEEE 802.11 Task Group G, thus both were rejected.
> >
> > -        Summary for Leo Monteban
> > o        Cast a "Yes" vote with two comments
> > o        Both comments were editorial
> > o        Both comments were rejected
> >
> > +++++++++
> >
> > All Comment Resolutions are included in Doc#: 11-03-381 rev.7 as
> > posted to the 802.11 web site, which contains all the comments from
> > the recirculation of Draft 8.2. . A copy of which is attached for you
> > convenience.  The document also contains Tim O'Farrell's comment from
> > the first sponsor ballot and Mike Moreton's and James Gilb's comments
> > from the first ballot.
> >
> > As there were no new no votes or comments and no subsequent change was
> > made to the 802.11g Draft 8.2, this ballot is concluded and D8.2 and
> > supporting documentation will be forwarded to RevCom for action at the
> > upcoming meeting in June.
> >
> > / Stuart
> > _______________________________
> >
> > Stuart J. Kerry
> > Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG
> >
> > Philips Semiconductors, Inc.
> > 1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
> > San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
> > United States of America.
> >
> > Ph  : +1 (408) 474-7356
> > Fax: +1 (408) 474-7247
> > Cell: +1 (408) 348-3171
> > eMail: stuart.kerry@philips.com
> > _______________________________
> >
> >                        Name: 11g comments.xls
> >    11g comments.xls    Type: Microsoft Excel Worksheet
> >                              (application/vnd.ms-excel)
> >                    Encoding: base64