RE: stds-802-16: RE: clarification regarding Binding comments from outside Ballot Group
I am aware of at least five other people who were unable to become members
of the spomsor ballot group because of similar confusion over the original
signup process / status and Rogers' refusal to process the re-opening motion
approved so strongly at the Vamvouver Plenary, where there would still
(just) have been time to add more names before starting the Sponsor Ballot.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Heinz Lycklama
Sent: 22 September 2002 00:37
To: 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-16@ieee.org
Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org
Subject: stds-802-16: RE: clarification regarding Binding comments from
outside Ballot Group
To provide some more background to this discussion, I should state
that I have as much problem with the process that was followed to
get to this state of selectively changing Binding comments to
non-Binding comments, as with the particular status of my comment.
Here's a little history:
1. On or about February 2002 we (as members of the WG)
were invited to join the Sponsor Ballot Group for
802.16a. Although I did apply to be a member, through
some technicality [missed confirmation step at the
end of the process] I did not become a member. I was
not aware that I was not a member until it was too late
because we could not view the list of accepted members online.
2. I asked Roger if I could still somehow get in the Sponsor
Ballot list. I don't think I was the only one that asked
Roger to do so. Roger chose to only add one other member
to the Sponsor Ballot Group at that time.
3. Roger informed us (by email) in April 2002 that - not to worry -
non-members could still submit comments "through him" and
"If you send them through me, I'll be happy to attach your name
to them and enter them." There was NO mention that he could/would
or might make any changes to our comments. So I felt no need
to make any more attempts to join the Sponsor Ballot.
4. When the first request for Sponsor Ballot for 802.16a was turned
down by the SEC, thereby giving us another two months of time,
the 802.16 group voted 19 to 0 (at Vancouver) to provide
another opportunity to add members to the Sponsor Group pool.
Roger apparently chose not to take action on this unanimous
proposal from the group.
5. When the Sponsor Ballot for P802.16a was opened to receive
comments starting August 2002, I submitted my comment #189
to Roger, for forwarding as Roger had agreed to do.
6. Roger chose to change my Binding comment to non-Binding
WITHOUT asking me for permission.
7. Roger chose NOT to tell me that he had changed my comment.
It was only after perusing the commentary (much later on)
that I found out about the change. [Had no reason to
believe that my submission wouldn't be submitted as is.]
The chair of 802.16 should not have the ability to change votes/comments
forwarded to him to influence the outcome of the balloting process. Each
comment should be processed on its own merit. We need to keep the process
open and transparent - that's the IEEE way!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Heinz Lycklama
Chief Systems Architect
Vectrad Networks
Ph: 425-501-5075
FX: 360-403-7446
em: heinzl@vectrad.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 5:56 PM
To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
Cc: Heinz Lycklama; p.nikolich@ieee.org
Subject: 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