All,
As another user of “superceded”,
my intent was to indicate that I thought the comment was a duplicate or subset
of the referenced comment and that I thought that the resolution I had
specified for the referenced comment dealt with the designated superceded comment
as well.
I would encourage
everyone to refrain from specifying a Recommendation of superceded, withdrawn,
or rejection unless, as suggested in the process document, you have been able
to confer with other commenters on the same subject matter and together you
have come to a conclusion on what the Proposed Resolution should be and against
which comment the Recommendation/Proposed resolution will be specified.
In the event such a
discussion did not take place, review the reply comments for your comment and
those of the related comments and specify a Proposed Resolution/Recommendation
that you believe is appropriate for the entire comment set. Further, as part of
your entry in the Reason for Recommendation field, list the comments that you
believe are members of the set. In this second case, specify a Recommendation
of reject or withdrawn only if you feel the issue need no longer be a subject
of discussion.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Itzik Kitroser
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 8:13
AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Reply
Comments for IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4; Revised Comments invited
Vladimir
and Roger,
I have
marked several comments as superceded, in most of the cases, it was because
comments where duplicates of others (which I recommended to be superceded by).
I fully
agree with Roger's analysis that in such cases, people probably should withdraw
such duplicated comments, since there is no sense of having different
resolutions for duplicated comments (and in duplicate I mean the case in which
two people proposed same solution for same problem).
Also
there were some cases where one comment contained solution to problem X, and
other comment contains same solution to problem X and in addition solutions to
problems Y and Z. From my perspective, it is obvious that the first comment
must be superceded by the second.
In all
other cases, I agree with Vladimir, that the proposal was to supercede by the resolution of the other
comment, and it was made to indicate the commenter and the group about this
scenario.
Best
regards,
Itzik.
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 11:41
AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Reply
Comments for IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4; Revised Comments invited
I agree with your
analysis.
I think that, when people
proposed "Superceded by #NNN," they probably meant that they would
like to see #NNN accepted and that they believed that the current comment would
thereby become irrelevant (which essentially means that they did not want to
accept it). But that's just my interpretation.
"Superceded",
"Approved, Duplicate", and "Rejected" all advocate against
accepting the comment in the current form, though they have a different spin on
how they feel about it. Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter much what reply
tag someone chose. We won't be voting on accepting the reply comments; we will
be voting on accepting revised comments. If I found that one of my comments was
better addressed by, or somehow made irrelevant by, another comment, I might
submit a revised version in which I marked it Withdrawn. In this case, the
comment need not be voted upon. If I recommended that my own comment be
Rejected, I suspect that the voters would probably comply.
You ask whether a comment
could be Superceded by a comment rather than by a comment resolution. I think
than, in some cases, it could. For instance, let's say that my comment said to
fix the spelling of a word, and your comment said to fix that spelling in two
places. Then your comment would supercede mine. Regardless of whether the group
accepted your comment or not, mine could, and should, be simply erased. In this
case, I might revise my comment to recommend that it's resolution be
Superceded. However, Withdrawn would make things easier for the BRC.
At 11:35 +0300 04/04/26,
Vladimir Yanover wrote:
Roger and All,
In Reply comments I found many proposed resolutions "superceeded by
#NNN".
Is there a reasonable interpretation for such proposal? Comment NNN still may
be resolved as "accepted" or "rejected".
My understanding of the procedure is that resolution of comment MMM may
be stated as "superceeded by the resolution of comment NNN".
If we don't have a resolution of NNN meanwhile, then there is no sense in
"superceeding". Please advise.
Thanks
Vladimir
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 10:10 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16] Reply Comments for IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4; Revised
Comments invited
We received 1305 reply comments to the comments received in the
P802.16-REVd/D4 Sponsor Ballot recirculation.
These reply comments have been added to the comment package, which is
now available:
http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_20r2.zip
The file is set to open to a layout showing the replies, in
abbreviated form. If more than three replies were submitted for a
given comment, you will need to scroll to see them all. For a more
spacious view of the
reply comments, click "See reply details" above
the colored Reply Comment
table.
In accordance with the
announced comment resolution procedures:
http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_18r1.pdf
those who submitted the original comments are now invited to
reconsider their comments in the light of:
(a) the reply comments
(b) other comments in the database that address relevant issues
To submit your revised comment, please follow the same procedure for
submitting Reply Comments, using the fields "Recommendation ", "
Proposed Resolution ", " Reason for Recommendation ", and "
Recommendation by". Email your revised comment files to
ballot16d@wirelessman.org by Wednesday 28 April AOE (Anywhere on
Earth).
ADVICE TO COMMENTORS:
In light of the defined procedure, there will be no opportunity for
the Ballot Resolution Committee (BRC) to alter the revised comments;
the BRC can only accept or reject them. Therefore, those who
submitted comments are strongly encouraged to study the database, not
only with respect to
their own comments but also with respect to
related comments. If you have a concern that related comments might
affect yours, please contact the other balloter to coordinate your
responses. Please ensure that your Suggested Remedy is fully
explicit, with detailed changes by page and line number, so that the
editor may implement it
without doubt as to your intent. If your
comment refers to an
external contribution, please refer to its
explicit contribution
number, including the revision number, at
<http://ieee802.org/16/tgd/#Contributions>.
Please remember that your
revised comment will be voted upon,
verbatim, by the BRC. The BRC members, when considering their vote,
will look to see whether your comment makes a convincing argument in
favor of the need for a change to the draft. They will also be
looking for evidence that you have fully addressed all concerns
raised in the reply comments and have considered alternatives
proposed there. You are encouraged eliminate any doubt the BRC
members have doubts about the change.
Please contact me with any questions.
Roger
--
Dr. Roger B. Marks <mailto:marks@nist.gov> +1 303 497 3037
National Institute of Standards and Technology/Boulder, CO, USA
Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access
<http://WirelessMAN.org>
This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
************************************************************************************
This mail was sent via
mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
************************************************************************************