RE: stds-802-16: clarification regarding Binding comments from outside Ballot Group
Roger - you probably remember that we have compalined several times that a
number of people were unable to join the sponsor ballot group because of
confusion over the appliocation process and/or lack of a readily available
list of sponsor ballot group mamebers. You have also dismissed several
requests to reopen the802.16a sponsor ballot group list for 802.16a. Part of
your "justification" for this was that non-members (of the ballot group)
could always submit comments through a member of the sponsor ballot group
(including yourself). Now it seems that commenst from non-members of the
sponsor ballot group cannot be counted as "disapprove" comments (ie
technical, biding). Does this also mean that in reviewing the comments, only
WG members who are also sponsor ballot group members may vote on each
comment during the meetings ?
Personally, I believe that the "spirit" of the process is that anyone
submitting a comment may declare it to be "binding" and that therefore the
rebuttal (if approipriate" must be resolved to the satisfaction of the
commenter (with his/her agreement on record). This is the same spirit that
we use within the WG, even though you say that the binding /non-binding
label is merely an internal aid etc. Let's keep the process as honest and
open as we can.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: 20 September 2002 01:56
To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
Cc: Heinz Lycklama; p.nikolich@ieee.org
Subject: 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