Re: [STDS-802-16] Concerns regarding leftover comment resolution
Along the same line as Carl's comment:
There are plenty comments that don't include any specific text as suggested
remedy. Hence they should be rejected on that ground because to editor can
not implement changes without proper instructions. On the other hand these
comments may raise relevant issues. So if we were to reject them, the
opportunity to fix these issues gets lost since we can't revisit them. If we
accept them, in order to keep the option to revisit, what's the editor going
to do ?
BR Rainer
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
carl.eklund@NOKIA.COM
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 6:27 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] Concerns regarding leftover comment resolution
Roger, fellow members of the ballot resolution committee
while looking at the 427 leftover comments that we have and trying to weigh
my position on each of them a deep concern has crept into my head. I
honestly sometimes don't know how to vote in order attempt to change things
in the direction I intend to. I'll try to give an example that sheds light
on my dilemma.
Say section x.y contains a problem that I didn't catch in my own comments.
Say that someone else caught the problem but offered a solution that I don't
like.
Now how should I vote? If I reject the comment I would effectively advocate
keeping the text as it is . If I accept the comment I would advocate a text
change, but not one that I like. In a sense I feel that I am in a lose/lose
situation.
Now since the SB rules in my understanding (please correct me if I am
wrong) are such that if the text remains unchanged from one recirc to
another it freezes and comments on that text can be ruled out of scope as a
procedural issue. Now the ballot resolution committee can obviously choose
to entertain non-binding comments on any section of the document at any
stage. The comments, however, would be non-binding and not guaranteed to be
examined by the resolution committee. So voting to reject is a bad option.
Also voting to approve is not very appealing. Text that possibly is worse
than the original goes in ( it might be hard to get out...) but gives me an
opening to comment on the changed text and attempt to get 'good text' in.
Actually if the proposed fix is really bad and breaks things the situation
is better as the later round of SB might actually fix the problem (however
this is far from guaranteed as can be seen with 802.16-2004). To me this
seems the less bad option of the two bad ones.
And all of this takes place without any proper technical discussion. In my
mind the situation is somewhat absurd and I want to make use of the
opportunity to express my strong dislike of the procedure we have chosen to
follow. I also serously doubt that it will serve to shorten the 'time to
market' of an implementable interoperable standard.
I am enclined to encourage people to make a accept decision on comments
that aren't crystal clear to keep the text 'alive' until such a time that we
can consider it appropriately. Even voting accept on all of the comments
might not be that bad of an idea ( I know the editor doesn't agree...) as
this also would change the text extensively and leave the door open for new
comments and proper resolutions later. It is much better in my mind than to
abstain or vote reject on comments adressing sections that needs to be
fixed.
BR Carl