stds-802-16-tg2: what is "fair game" in a recirculation ballot?

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

>Following review at TM4 this week I have 3 further editorial comments from
>the TM4 working group. Is it procedurally OK for me to also supply these as
>editorials for the second letter ballot?
>
>Regards
>
>Barry Lewis

Barry,

This is a good question. The answer is "yes".

In drafting the ballot tool, I tried to be clear that only the 
resolutions are the subject of this ballot. On the other hand, it 
wouldn't make sense for the committee to refuse to accept comments 
that improve the draft. In fact, we should encourage them.

Your comment stimulated me to add a new instruction:

'You are encouraged to comment on portions of the draft which are not 
the subject of comment resolution and therefore not the subject of 
this ballot. However, you may not designate such comments as 
"binding" and may not use them as a basis of a "Disapprove" vote.'

I've just posted an updated balloting tool and announced it to the 
802.16 reflector.

Thanks,

Roger