stds-802-16: plans for IEEE Sponsor Ballot of new draft of P802.16.2a
Recall that the IEEE-SA Standards Board Board declined to approve
P802.16.2a in June, saying that it should have been a Revision, not
an Amendment. We needed a new PAR and to reform the Ballot Group.
They said that, if no one new joined the Ballot Group, then the
standard would be considered approved without another ballot.
The invitation to the join the ballot group doesn't close until
Friday, but I already have the key fact: new people have indeed
joined. My guess is that most of these were not in the ballot pool
the last time we formed a ballot group. Oh well.
So, we need to re-ballot.
In order to move forward, we needed to turn the previous draft
(P802.16.2a/D5) into a new draft that is formatted as a Revision
instead of as an Amendment. I have undertaken this task. I made those
changes, correcting some additional editorial issues along the way. I
have completed the results, naming it P802.16.2a/D6. You can find it
here:
http://ieee802.org/16/private/drafts/tg2/P802162a_D6.zip
Today, I submitted this draft to the IEEE Balloting Center, asking
them to open Sponsor Ballot early next week, or as soon as possible
following formation of the Ballot Group (whose invitation closes this
Friday). The ballot will also include a cover letter with a brief
explanation of some of the weirdness around the ballot:
http://ieee802.org/16/docs/03/80216-03_36.pdf
Roger
>13 June 2003
>
>Roger Marks
>NIST
>325 Broadway, MC 813.00
>Boulder, CO 80305
>
>cc: Paul Nikolich, C/LM Liaison
> Angela Ortiz, Program Manager
> Yvette Ho Sang, Manager IEEE Standards Publishing
>
>RE: NEW P802.16.2a/D5 (C/LM) Amendment to IEEE Recommended Practice for
>Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Coexistence of Fixed Broadband
>Wireless Access Systems - Amendment 1
>
>Dear Roger,
>
>RevCom voted to recommend approval to the Standards Board. The vote was
>yes=8; no=3 (Bruder, Mills, Thompson); abstain=1 (Klerer).
>
>At the Standards Board meeting, the following motion was approved:
>
>"Resolved that IEEE P802.16.2a ballot submission be handled as follows:
>
>1) Sponsor shall submit a revised PAR, indicating that the document is a
>revision. This PAR can be handled through NesCom Continuous Processing.
>
>2) Sponsor shall send a ballot invitation to the balloting pool used for
>the previous amendment ballot.
>
>[The invitation should outline the current situation in terms of unanimous
>approval of those who voted, but recognition that some individuals might
>have joined the previous balloting group if they had perceived the project
>as a revision effort instead of an amendment.]
>
>3a) If no new members join the balloting group, the document is approved as
>submitted.
>
>3b) If new members join the balloting group, an initial ballot shall be
>conducted on the current draft."
>
>Please work with necessary staff.
>
>Jodi Haasz, NesCom Administrator [j.haasz@ieee.org]
>Christine Santos, Balloting Center Manager [c.santos@ieee.org]
>Greg James, Program Manager [g.james@ieee.org]
>
>Sincerely,
>********************************************************************************
>David L. Ringle
>RevCom Administrator
>IEEE Standards Activities Dept.
>
>445 Hoes Lane PH: +1 732 562 3806
>PO Box 1331 FX: +1 732 562 1571
>Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331 d.ringle@ieee.org
>********************************************************************************
>
>
>>One correction: When I said that I didn't have time to circulate
>>the revised PAR to the Working Group, I was confusing July with
>>June. In fact, the next NesCom deadline isn't until July 9.
>>Therefore, the relevant deadline is the SEC's; they need the PAR 30
>>days before the July Plenary. I'll plan to submit it by June 20.
>>That will leave a few days for review.
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>
>>>At its meeting today, the IEEE-SA Standards Board declined to
>>>approve the submitted draft P802.16.2a/D5 ("Draft Amendment to
>>>IEEE Recommended Practice for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks
>>>- Coexistence of Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems -
>>>Amendment 1").
>>>
>>>This issue was debated at great length, first in RevCom (which
>>>voted yesterday to recommend approval) and again today by the
>>>IEEE-SA Standards Board. The key issue was the one originally
>>>discussed at RevCom's Early Consideration meeting in April
>>><http://ieee802.org/16/arc/802-16list2/msg00855.html>: that the
>>>document looked like a Revision but was chartered as an Amendment.
>>>I worked with RevCom and IEEE staff members on this issue in the
>>>meantime, and I forwarded to RevCom a "Summary of Changes in
>>>Amendment P802.16.2a Affecting IEEE Std 802.16.2"
>>><http://ieee802.org/16/docs/03/80216-03_23.pdf>. This document
>>>summarized a document approved by the Working Group at Session
>>>#25, putting it in context with regard to the RevCom
>>>deliberations. It also recounts that the Ballot Resolution
>>>Committee had rejected a comment from IEEE staff suggesting that
>>>we could run into trouble later on if we followed along our course.
>>>
>>>It turns out that, although the issue has many facets, the
>>>Standards Board has presented an alternative that makes their
>>>concern very concrete. This is specified in a motion that was
>>>passed, as detailed in the note below from Paul Nikolich. I very
>>>much appreciate this action on behalf of the Board (and I highly
>>>appreciate the supportive efforts on our behalf by Howard Frazier,
>>>acting as a RevCom member and as Standards Board Vice Chair).
>>>
>>>The Board motion says that we need to recast the project as a
>>>Revision, through a new PAR. We also need to reopen the ballot
>>>invitation, specifying that we are doing a Revision of 802.16.2.
>>>If no new members join the ballot group, then "the document is
>>>approved as submitted". Otherwise, we need to re-ballot. This
>>>makes the key issue clear: there is a concern that "some
>>>individuals might have joined the previous balloting group if they
>>>had perceived the project as a revision effort instead of an
>>>amendment." That is, someone interested only in 10-66 GHz may have
>>>skipped the amendment ballot since the amendment was aimed at 2-11
>>>GHz; that same person might have joined the ballot group if the
>>>project were advertised as a complete rewrite (which, editorially
>>>at least, it is). Personally, I think that the Board needs to
>>>think carefully about how to craft rules that specify when an
>>>document exceeds the bounds of its charter as an amendment. That
>>>will not be simple, but the issue doesn't affect us here, since we
>>>have been judged out of bounds.
>>>
>>>At this point, I plan the following actions:
>>>
>>>(1) I will draft a revised PAR.
>>>(2) I will submit the draft revised PAR to NesCom, to be eligible
>>>for approval on August 4. (I need to do this right away in order
>>>to make the deadline; I'm sorry I don't have time for Working
>>>Group review. The Working Group can edit the draft in July.)
>>>(3) I submit the revised PAR to the 802 SEC for consideration at
>>>the July 802 Plenary.
>>>
>>>Roger
>>>
>>>
>>>>Roger,
>>>>
>>>>802.16.2a was not approved by the standards board due to concern
>>>>that the ballot group was formed on the basis the document being
>>>>balloted was an amendment, yet the Stds Board felt it should have
>>>>been balloted as a revision due to the extensive changes made to
>>>>the base document.
>>>>
>>>>Therefore a motion was passed as follows:
>>>>
>>>>"Move that the IEEE-SA Standards Board replace the existing
>>>>motion on IEEE P802.16.2a with the following motion:
>>>>
>>>>Resolved that IEEE P802.16.2a ballot submission be handled as follows:
>>>>
>>>>1) Sponsor shall submit a revised PAR indicating that the
>>>>document is a revision. This PAR can be handled through NesCom
>>>>continuous processing.
>>>>
>>>>2) Sponsor shall send a ballot invitation to the balloting pool
>>>>used for the previous amendment ballot.
>>>>
>>>>[The invitation should outline the current situation in terms of
>>>>unanimous approval of those who voted, but recognition that some
>>>>individuals might have joined the previous balloting group if
>>>>they had perceived the project as a revision effort instead of an
>>>>amendment.]
>>>>
>>>>3a) If no new members join the balloting group, the document is
>>>>approved as submitted
>>>>
>>>>3b) If new members join the balloting group, an initial ballot
>>>>shall be conducted on the current draft."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>--Paul