stds-802-16-tg2: Comment resolution

["Phil Whitehead by way of Roger B. Marks" <114772.2535@compuserve.com>]

Phil posted this message earlier today. It was refused by the 
reflector because it included an attachment. I have posted the file 
in question as an updated version of:

	http://ieee802.org/16/docs/00/80216-00_29.xls

Roger

===============================================
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