stds-802-16: clarification regarding Binding comments from outside Ballot Group
Folks,
I have received a complaint from Heinz Lycklama that his 802.16a Sponsor Ballot comment (#189) is recorded as "Technical, Non-binding" even though he submitted it to me as "Technical, Binding".
As the term has been used within 802.16, a "Technical, Binding" vote is one that supports a Disapprove vote. I have explained to Mr. Lycklama that, since he is not a member of the Balloting Group, I did not mark his comment as "Binding". He is not satisfied.
While I have forwarded all the comments I received, whether from members or non-members of the ballot group, I have converted all "Binding" comments to "Non-binding". To my the best of my knowledge, there are two other comments like this, both by Brian Banister (#307 and #311).
Please note that the distinction between "Binding" and "Non-binding", even for ballot group members, is unofficial and only for the convenience of the Working Group. The IEEE Balloting Center does not ask balloters to categorize comments this way. We have received several technical comments submitted through the Balloting Center's web form. When these have come from a Disapprove voter, my policy is to mark each of these as Binding, since they _may_ be the basis of a Disapprove vote.
According to the IEEE Standards Companion, "Comments are considered from anyone who contributes them and must be addressed, but the only votes that count towards approval of the document are those of the eligible members of the balloting group." So, please keep in mind that we must address all comments, whether or not they are from a member of the ballot group.
At the moment, I still think it is appropriate to take the following action with respect to comments 189, 307, and 311:
*leave them marked as "Non-binding"
*add a note "{submitted as Binding}" on each, in the next database update
*make sure that the Working Group addresses each
If someone knows of a rule or guideline that suggests I do otherwise, then please let me know and I will consider it.
Regards,
Roger