Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++ENDS 12 AUG+++ Proposed 2nd 802 ExCom Electronic Letter Ballot package regarding 802.11j
On 8/2/2004 3:20 PM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
> 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 -----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>
> To: p.nikolich@IEEE.ORG <mailto:p.nikolich@IEEE.ORG>
> Cc: matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM
> <mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM> ; firstname.lastname@example.org
> <mailto:email@example.com> ; firstname.lastname@example.org
> <mailto:email@example.com> ; firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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: email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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
> 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 [mailto:email@example.com]
>> 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 <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> To: Grow, Bob <mailto:email@example.com>
>> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com> ;
>> firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com> ;
>> firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 6:15 PM
>>> To: Grow, Bob
>>> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
>>> 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
>>> 3) P802.11j D1.6 redlined draft.
>>> 4) Sponsor Ballot comment resolution document, indicating
>>> 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
>>> email: firstname.lastname@example.org
> ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.