stds-802-16-tg2: Re: TG2 Letter ballot

["Roger B. Marks" <marks@boulder.nist.gov>]

Phil wrote:

>Roger
>
>I have circulated my proposal for comment resolution to the primary 
>TG2 members and found some volunteers to share the work. As you 
>know, we are lucky to have a new editor, Muya, to help this process 
>through.
>
>I have a few questions, which I hope you can clarify
>
>(1) Is my proposed procedure OK under the rules?. From my reading, 
>it is, but I understand that there may be "unwritten" rules that I 
>do not know about?.

The rules of recirculation are unwritten. I have gotten a handle on 
them. I will develop the balloting tool, handle the ballots, and 
otherwise help us through the process.

The process by which we get a revised document are rather loose. I 
think your plan is fine. The important thing is that the revised 
document is accepted more broadly than the previous version and that 
we have the results fully documented.

The advantage of getting the recirculation finished by Jan 19 is that 
it gets us a few weeks ahead, and it lets us use the Ottawa meeting 
to address any remaining negatives. We will then run another recirc 
if necessary. Also, recall that 802.16 passed a motion to hold such a 
recirc.

>(2) When will you be able to release the votes and comments 
>database? Will it be in ACCESS database format and is there any 
>chance to forward interim data in database format (as opposed to the 
>pdf format of the file you circulated on 15/12)? That would help me 
>develop a useable database for the team to resolve comments and 
>record resolution.

Sure. What format do you prefer?

>(3) If we have enough "approve" and "approve with non-binding 
>comments" votes by 27th December, can we abandon or delay the 
>re-balloting procedure?.

No. We already have one person submitting binding comments. We can't 
go to the 802 SEC without attempting to resolve them, even if 
everyone else votes to Approve.

>It is going to be very tight to achieve the 9th January date but we 
>will obviously give it our best if it is essential.

Unless someone objects, you can just insert the replacement text from 
the comments. It may not be perfect, but it can be a good start.

>I have sent out one appeal for votes but the danger for TG2 is that 
>it may be hard to get the necessary 50% of members to vote, since 
>our work has attracted only a minority to attend meetings.

I will send out a reminder that their membership is under threat if 
they don't vote. If we don't get the 50%, then the entire ballot is 
dead and we have to start again anyway.

>(4) Assuming we get enough votes in round 1, what is the 
>re-circulation requirement (section 5.4.3.2 of the IEEE manual is 
>referred to - I could not find this).

We send out a revised version for a 10-day vote. Votes to Approve 
remain that way unless we hear otherwise. The thrust of the effort is 
to convince Disapprove voters to switch to Approve based on the 
changes.

>Please note that I am out of the office 23 December thru 2nd 
>January. I can be contacted by email on 114772.2535@compuserve.com 
>when out of the office. My home telephone is +44 1223 234502 and my 
>mobile is +44 7932 068782
>
>Have a good Christmas
>Best regards
>Phil Whitehead

Regards,

Roger