stds-802-16-tg2: Re: Recirculation ballot

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

Phil,

I'd like to discuss the recirculation process.

The 802 balloting rules basically follow the IEEE balloting rules:
	http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect5.html#5.4

I draw your attention to this extract on recirculation:

'All substantive technical changes made in the final draft to resolve 
comments, objections, and negative votes, and all unresolved negative 
votes, together with the reasons of the negative voter and the 
rebuttal by the members conducting the resolution of the ballots, 
shall be submitted to the members... Balloting group members shall 
have an opportunity to change their previously cast ballots. A change 
to "do not approve," which shall be submitted with comments, shall be 
based only on the changed portions of the balloted document, clauses 
affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted document that 
are the subject of the unresolved negative votes. Names of the 
unresolved negative voters are to be included with their negative 
comments in the recirculation of negative comments. Further 
resolution efforts may be required if additional negative votes 
result.'

Note that we are recirculating the changes, not the new document. We 
are asking people if they would like to reconsider their vote based 
on the proposed changes. This means that it is NOT essential that we 
post a new version. I think this should give you a little more time 
that you had planned.

In the _final_ recirc, we need to include the comments of negative 
voters on the version being recirculated. However, in this round, I 
think it is sufficient to include their comments on Draft 1, along 
your response to them. If we still have negatives after this first 
recirc, we can use Session #11 to discuss them. The _final_ recirc 
(hopefully, the one following Session #11) must include the comments 
of the negative voters regarding the final version. [If the negative 
voters don't attend, it may be harder to obtain these statements. We 
can give them a deadline.]

Also, in the _final_ recirc we ought to have a final document, in 
addition to a change list, for people to vote on.

Now, how does this all affect our current process?

The main thing is that we need to vote on comment resolutions that 
are very explicit. In other words, anyone (expert or not) should be 
able to interpret each resolution as an editing instruction that 
specifies a document change. Many of the comments in the database are 
this explicit and can be accepted as is. However, I would guess that 
most are vague or inaccurate and cannot be unambiguously interpreted. 
Also, many have their own editorial shortcomings. It is the job of 
the TG2 editorial group to turn these raw comments into editing 
instructions.

I suggest that you add a few columns to the spreadsheet:

(1) Clause Editor's comment [from your appointed Clause Editors].
(2) Clause Editor's proposed resolution (a specific instruction).
(3) Editorial groups's resolution

As Phil suggested, to get from (2) to (3) you ought to circulate the 
proposed resolutions on the TG2 reflector for a few days.

At the end of the process, you can send me the spreadsheet back. I 
will import it into the existing database and use it as the basis of 
the recirculation letter ballot. Allow me one day for this job. If we 
run a little late, then the deadline will fall on the weekend before 
Session #11, which won't be a disaster; we'll still have the results 
back in time for the meeting.

Regards,

Roger



>Hi everyone
>
>I guess you all saw the good news from Roger that we have successfully
>completed round 1 of the ballot process.
>
>I think we should definitely go for the recirculation on 9th January. I
>just have one small hitch, which is that I can't find the Excel version of
>the comment database on the website. I have asked Roger to send the data to
>me, following which I will divide up and send to you promptly in Excel
>format, with columns for entering the proposed  resolution text. As the
>number of comments is not too great, I think we have a good chance between
>us of meeting the recirculation date.
>
>Meanwhile, you can see all the comments raised on the website (pdf version
>of the report).  It would be useful to look at them whilst waiting for my
>input, which I will send asap.
>
>Best regards and Happy New Year
>
>Phil