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

[802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++ENDS 12 AUG+++ Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j

Dear EC members,
As per the decision at the July closing EC meeting Stuart Kerry has made the below motion to forward 802.11j to RevCom under the conditional approval process.  See the motion below.
The ballot duration will be 10 days.  It opens 4pm edt 2 August and closes 4pm edt 12 August.
--Paul Nikolich
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 2:37 PM
Subject: Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j

May I formally request that the Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding the motion regarding 802.11j for conditional approval is started today as a 10 Day EC Ballot.
Moved by: Kerry
Seconded by: Sherman
Having it as a 10 Day would mean that it opened today and closed August 12, 2004 to enable it to be approved and loaded onto the RevCom agenda by their agenda closing date of August 13.
/ Stuart

From: []
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:37
To: Grow, Bob
Cc: Stuart Kerry
Subject: Re: FW: Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j

Thank you very much for your second review.  Attached is the updated package.


Grow, Bob wrote:

From: Grow, Bob
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:28 AM
To: 'Paul Nikolich'
Subject: RE: Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j

It looks fine to me, my only suggestion was to add a "(formerly Procedure 10)" to the title slide for those of us that might not remember we approved new rules a couple week ago.  I believe they will need a 10 day EC ballot.

From: Paul Nikolich []
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 12:25 PM
To: Grow, Bob
Subject: Fw: Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j

Did you review and comment on the attached information?  I can't remember or find a response from you.  I will not initiate an EC email ballot until I get the OK from you.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sheung Li
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j

Thank you very much for reviewing these materials so quickly.  Respectfully noting the scope of your feedback, I have since consulted Stuart along with David, Andy, and Yvette at IEEE staff and the 802.1 conditional approval materials from the July ExCom meeting.

The presentation is now focused and consistent with the others.  Please let us know if it addresses your concerns.

Addressing each of your points.

1.  Required information
   a. The exact recirculation ballot dates are included
   b. D1.5 unaccepted disapprove comments only (per LMSC P&P Jul 04 pg 40, para. 3) are attached.

2.  Unnecessary information
   a.  Supporting material has been moved to the back
   b.  Only current status reported.  Conditional responses removed
   c.  Checklist and all speculation removed
   d.  Revert to use of PAR title.   The changes in the usage of "LAN," "IEEE," and Amendment Number in the title were all made to conform to the current SA publication standard (as used in 802.11i, 2003 corrigendum, etc.)  Per RevCom requirements, the exact PAR title except for the mispelled "Telecommunications" is now used.  IEEE production staff will make necessary conformance changes.

3.  Prejudicial comments
   Speculation on future changes removed


Grow, Bob wrote:
1.  You haven't provided the required information.
    a.  There is no schedule for the recirculation ballot.  All the package says is the recirculation must complete one week before RevCom meets.  How about some actual dates that give us confidence that the LMSC 15 day recirculation period has been remembered, and that the ballot will have been opened by the RevCom submittal deadline as their conventions require.
    b.  It looks like you have provided a complete comment report, nice to point at but not what is requested.  It isn't my job to filter through the comments to see which ones are linked to negative ballots.  I expect a separate unresolved negative comment report.
2.  There is confusing and unnecessary info to distract EC members.  Actually the only critical information in the Procedure 10 presentation is slide 9.
    a.  I find inclusion of the WG/LB ballot stuff in the procedure 10 presentation confusing.  The only thing that matters for RevCom submission is the Sponsor Ballot process/results as required in the procedure 10 bullets.  Move LB info to supplementary material rather than leading with it.
    b.  Slide 9 -- I don't need to be confused by "conditionally change their vote to yes".  They are either yes or no at this moment.  If you don't have an email flipping the vote (no conditions), don't promise a higher approval percentage.  If you have the email or some other kind of sign-off for a ballot flip, be prepared to produce it if asked..  You will be able to report conditional flips (e.g., I want to look at it in the draft during recirculation, but I should be satisfied) to us when you report the results of the D1.6 ballot.
    c.  The items in the Procedure 10 numbered list are something you report to us after the D1.6 recirculation to justify leaving the submittal on the RevCom agenda.  Yes you need your own check list now for project management, but the EC should be focused on the facts, not speculations about what will happen with D1.6.
    d.  The draft is nice but not required for Procedure 10 EC review.  Having it though and seeing that there were changes to the title, I compared it to the PAR.  Now you get to explain on the RevCom submission why the document title balloted and the PAR do not agree (e.g., why did you delete "LAN", the "Amendment" thing is obviously for adaptation to current publication style).
3.  Slide 10, item 4 comment is prejudicial.  The number of comments in the comment report is sufficient justification that comment resolution has been largely completed.  To indicate a prejudice to not make any changes in response to D1.6 1st SB recirculation comments that you haven't seen isn't good. 

From: []
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 6:15 PM
To: Grow, Bob
Subject: Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j

Bob ,
Per the instructions given to 802.11 at the Portland ExCom Closing Plenary meeting I am enclosing the information regarding agenda item 5.12 - 802.11j for consideration for approval, to forward to RevCom under procedure 10 of the LMSC P&P (now paragraph 21 - revised July 16, 2004).
I know that I may be asking a lot of you but, please could you kindly review the complete package before I send this to Paul for the ExCom motion, which I will of course incorporate any valuable suggestions of yours before sending to him. I would like to send the pack by Thursday this week, so an early consideration would be very much appreciated.
Attached is the complete package of P802.11j documentation sent to me by the Task Group (Sheung Li) which I have reviewed and amended accordingly, including;

1) Procedure 10 Presentation, including vote tallies for 802.11 ExCom members.

2) P802.11j D1.6 clean draft, expecting no further technical changes

3) P802.11j D1.6 redlined draft.

4) Sponsor Ballot comment resolution document, indicating resolutions

I believe that item 1) above is the executive summary that the ExCom members are looking for.

Carl Stevenson has agreed to second the ExCom motion, particularly in the light of Paul's stance regarding the News/Closing reports, should be cleared by tonight with regards to 802.11.
Thanks for your help in advance,

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) 474-5343
Cell: +1 (408) 348-3171

---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.