Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

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