stds-802-16-tg2: RE: Results of P802.16.2a RevCom Early Consideration review
Title: RE: Results of P802.16.2a RevCom Early
Consideration r
Here's a little more detail on this topic. I'm attaching below
some extracts from a discussion held shortly before the RevCom
teleconference. It gives you some idea of the topic. The actual
discussion went into further detail.
Again, the "Early Consideration" teleconference
approval is supposed to be for non-controversial submittals. I thought
that's what we had, until a few days before the telecon.
Roger
Geoffrey
Thompson
Disapprove: I believe it is not appropriate to replace the
entire text (ref D5, pdf pg 15, line 30) of the standard under the
'editing instructions' of an amendment. This makes the changes
seem like an attempt to do a revision yet limit the scope of the work
and not show the specific changes to the existing standard.
Change the PAR to a revision and reballot as such.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1.2 Types of IEEE standards
An IEEE
Standards Project may develop a document that is
- New: A
document that does not replace or substantially modify another
standard.
-
Revision: A document that updates or replaces an existing IEEE
standard in its entirety.
-
Amendment: A document that has to contain new material to an existing
IEEE standard and that may contain substantive corrections to that
standard as well.
- Corrigenda: A document that only contains substantive corrections to
an existing IEEE standard.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
9.2
Revision
The Sponsor shall initiate revision of a standard whenever any of the
material in the standard (including all amendments, corrigenda, etc.)
becomes obsolete or incorrect. The Sponsor may initiate revision
of a standard when new material becomes available and normal
evaluation of need and feasibility indicates revision is
warranted.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply from Roger Marks: Thank you for
your comments. I appreciate your concerns.
I'd
like to provide some additional background on this topic. [This
differs from my immediate recollection that I gave you on the phone
today.] Namely, I raised this issue by email to the IEEE
editorial staff during the ballot, and I personally submitted a
Sponsor Ballot comment including the staff reply. The Ballot
Resolution Committee (BRC) decided to proceed with the editorial
direction. This is all documented below. The BRC decision
was endorsed by the Ballot Group in the sense that no further comments
were received on the topic.
Also
note that, in the final recirc, we received a coordination comment
from the Managing Editor of IEEE Standards Activities, saying that
"I have reviewed P802.16.2a/D5 and it meets all the requirements
for Editorial Coordination." Therefore, it appeared to me
as if all editorial coordination issues were satisfied.
==============================================
Comment
#9 from Roger Marks (received 11 Jan 2003; recirculated in First
Recirc):
Note the following issue:
Yvette: We have an amendment (to a different standard: 802.16.2) under
ballot. Because it became so complicated and virtually
incomprehensible, the editors and Working Group decided to basically
put it in the form of "replace most everything in the base
standard with this new version." If this is acceptable to
the ballot group, do you foresee any problems with the approach?
Roger
Suggested remedy:
Roger,
Wouldn't it have been preferable to make this a revision rather than
an amendment? If you still want to go along the amendment path,
there is nothing that prevents you from doing this. You may be
reprimanded at RevCom, since they may suggest that a revision would
have been more appropriate, but I'm not sure whether any offenses
would have occurred. Other things may happen, e.g., deferment
until you consider their recommendation that you do a revision
instead. It would be up to the committee to decide what action
they would take.
I would suggest that the easier solution would be to request a PAR
change and denote the project and ballot as a revision. In
either case, I'd decide what the best publishing format would be.
Without seeing the document, an extensive revision like the one you
mentioned would probably be best published as the base document with
all changes indicated (strikethroughs, underlines, and notes if entire
sections were deleted). We can talk about this also next
week.
Regards,
Yvette Ho Sang
Manager, Standards Publishing Programs
IEEE Standards Activities
Resolution of Group
Rejected
Reason for Group's Resolution
The document structure is intended to make reading easier, and
this has required the replacement and re-ordering of substantial
amounts of text. Without this, the amendment would be extremely
difficult to follow.
The
draft is in accordance with the PAR. Now that the document has
initial sponsor ballot approval, the WG is not in a position to change
the process and is obligated to proceed towards publication as quickly
as possible.
==============================================
I'm
happy to provide further information if you need it.
Regards,
Dr.
Roger B. Marks