stds-802-16-tg2: Re: Comment resolution

[Paul Thompson <paulcom@paulcom.com>]

Phil:
         I received your E-Mail with the new assignments + comments to be 
resolved and will comply by January 5.

Paul


At 01:33 PM 12/30/00 -0500, Phil Whitehead wrote:
>Dear comment resolvers
>
>A copy of the comment spreadsheet, adapted for the first step of the
>resolution process is attached.I have highlighted binding comments and
>technical non-binding comments. The rest are editorial and I hope are easy
>to resolve. I have tried to ensure that no-one is responsible for accepting
>his own comments!
>
>  I propose the following revision to the list of responsibilities:
>
>
>section................................................responsibility
>global/title/introduction..................myself
>sections 1,2,5,8 and appendix B...myself
>section 3, appendix F....................Paul
>sections 4,7, appendix G..............Jack
>sections 6,9, appendix A..............Remi
>appendix C,D,E...............................Barry
>
>[Bob,Reza and Ray......as there are almost no comments on the antenna
>parameters, I propose that Remi deals with the whole of section 6]
>
>[Paul.....I would like you to deal with section 3, so that I am not
>resolving comments made by myself]
>
>The process should work as follows:
>
>- make a copy of the spreadsheet
>- delete the sections for which you are not responsible
>- consider each comment and propose a resolution (consult with others as
>necessary)
>- if you do not agree to the comment, consult with others, and if still not
>able to agree,  state in the rebuttal-rationale column your reasons
>- email the completed spreadsheet to me and copy to Muya not later than 5th
>January (earlier if possible)
>- I will recompile and send to Roger before 8th January
>- I will liaise with Muya on the necessary editing work
>
>It seems that we do not have to issue a complete new document for the
>recirculation process, only the changes.
>We should pay particular attention to binding comments. If we can agree to
>these comments, it should be possible to change some negative votes into
>positive. Of course, we should only make changes that are acceptable. It is
>possible (though I hope not) that we will be left with some comments that
>can not beresolved to everyone's satisfaction. We will have to deal with
>these in the next step.
>
>The recirculation is also a good opportunity to note any further editorial
>points that we have missed and can resolve easily, so as to improve our
>document quality.
>
>Please would all comment resolvers drop me a note to confirm that they have
>received this message and can complete the task.
>
>Have a good New Year
>
>Best regards
>Phil Whitehead
>
>
>