Re: stds-802-16-tg2: Letter Ballot #2 results

[Jack Garrison <gjg@telus.net>]

Phil:

I vote that we still try for a recirc. as per the previous schedule. I would
like to see a clean doc. for the Jan. meeting.
-------------------------------

Roger: A number of the comments you sent would just not print out on my
machine. I just got told that there were syntax errors. Could you check on
this.
-------------------------------

While I am very pleased with the voting results, I am very displeased with
the absence of voting by a number of TG2 and .16 major participants. Its a
good thing they never worked for me; I would have fired them immediately.

Jack
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roger B. Marks wrote:

> Phil,
>
> Congratulations on the success of Letter Ballot #2!
>
> Let's talk about where to go next. First, the schedule, starting with
> IEEE, who will oversee the Sponsor Ballot. I expect it to look like
> this:
>
> 29 December Marks sends IEEE a letter of Invitation to Ballot Group
> 29 December Marks issues a final invitation to join ballot pool
>   8 January  IEEE invites ballot pool members to join Ballot Group
> 17 February Deadline to accept Ballot Group invitation (40 days)
> 19 February Sponsor Ballot ready to begin
>
> In parallel, we ought to try and get a draft approved by the 802 SEC
> in time to be ready when IEEE is. Our schedule is thus:
>
>   9 January  Recirculation begins (possible)
> 19 January  Recirculation ends (possible)
> 22 January  Session #11 begins
> 26 January  Session #11 ends
> 29 January  Final recirculation begins
>   8 February Final recirculation ends
>   9 February IEEE 802 SEC email vote (on going to Sponsor Ballot) begins
> 19 February IEEE 802 SEC email vote ends
>
> If we are to make good use of Session #11, we are (obviously) going
> to modify the draft there. Therefore, we have to follow Session #11
> with a recirculation ballot before we go to the SEC. That fits the
> IEEE schedule well.
>
> The main question now is whether or not to run an additional recirc
> before Session #11. This would provide yet one more pass at getting
> the bugs out; I am sure there are still quite a few. It would also
> increase the likelihood of a clean result (i.e., no outstanding
> negatives) following Session #11. On the other hand, it isn't
> absolutely necessary, and the recirc after Session #11 would
> _probably_ turn out OK. Also, you guys would be busy until Jan. 9
> getting the next draft ready.
>
> By the way, in a recirculation ballot, votes will stand unless
> changed; in other words, those who voted yes the first time do not
> need to vote again if they are still happy.
>
> So, to recirc or not to recirc? As Chair, you ought to make the
> decision. My suggestion is to do it if you can. If you decide not to,
> then I think you ought to make sure your people put an extra effort
> into scouring the document for editorial issues and inconsistencies.
> In this regard, they will be doing some of the work that, in a
> recirc, you would pawn off on the rest of the Working Group. (I have
> to say that the record shows that the TG2 regulars were not
> especially diligent in reviewing the draft during the just-completed
> ballot stage.)
>
> Let me know what you want to do. In any case, Happy New Year!
>
> Roger
>
> >IEEE 802.16's Letter Ballot #2 has closed. In summary, the results were:
> >
> >Approve         69
> >Disapprove       4
> >Abstain         10
> >Approval Ratio: 94.5%
> >Return Ratio:   61.9%
> >Comments:       147
> >
> >The motion carried, pending comment resolution and recirculation.
> >
> >For the full report, including the comment report in both PDF and
> >spreadsheet form, see:
> >
> >       http://ieee802.org/16/tg2/ballots/ballot02
> >
> >Congratulations to TG2! I will be working with them on the comment
> >resolution and recirculation process.
> >
> >Happy New Year!
> >
> >Roger