Dear all,
If you have volunteered to resolve comments on 802.11ba D3.0, please read the following comment resolution guide document:
Also note that LB241 was a recirculation ballot so for a comment to be valid the following additional conditions (highlighted in yellow) described in 2.8 in the document should be met:
"2.8 Valid vs invalid comments
For a comment to be valid:
• It needs to identify where the issue is in the draft
• It needs to identify what the issue is
• It needs to identify a proposed change in sufficient detail that the CRC can readily identify changes that they would reasonably expect to satisfy the commenter. The wording from the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual (2010 p24) is: “This vote must be accompanied by one or more specific objections with proposed resolution in sufficient detail so that the specific wording of the changes that will cause the Do Not Approve voter to change his or her vote to Approve can readily be determined.”
Note –The interpretation of the word “must” in the rule quoted above is that any comment that fails to provide “proposed resolution in sufficient detail so that the specific wording of the changes” is invalid.
In a recirculation ballot, additionally, to be in scope:
• The comment needs to be on changed text, or
• Text affected by a change elsewhere, or
• Related to text that is the subject of a valid unsatisfied comment (see 2.12) from a previous round of balloting.Important Note:Before rejecting any comment on the basis of its formal validity, the CRC should first consider whether there is, in fact, something that needs to be fixed. If there is the CRC should consider fixing it, regardless of the formal validity of the comment. Failure to do so might simply cause delay, with the issue remaining for the next ballot."
Regards,
Minyoung
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBA&A=1