Re: [STDS-802-16] Some problems with the voting
At 16:55 +0200 04/04/30, Avi Freedman wrote:
>Roger and all,
>I have encountered a few problems in the process, which I am putting
>them together here, from the editoral/technical to the general.
>
>1. Comments 61, 63-65 are editorial with unanimous acceptance.
>However the commenter entered the proposed resolution as a '*'. Is
>it a database problem?
It's the same as saying "accept the comment as originally submitted."
>2. Comments 279, 280 and 282 are clearly outside of the scope of the
>recirculation and do not address any comment, as far as I could
>see, of 80216-04_11r5 or p. 641 and 642 of the
>'P80216-REVd_D4delta.pdf' document. Although I missed it in the
>reply comment phase (and so did the other commentors) still I
>intend to reject them on this basis (though I may sympethesize with
>the intent).
>3. in face-to-face meetings a BRC usually comes out with a set of
>resolved comments, but also with a group resolution reply to the
>rejected comments. While we have in the current off-line process the
>commentors to resolve and put together the text for the resolved
>comments, we don't have a similar procedure for putting together
>the text for the rejected comments. Is it possible to use the
>"Reason for Group Decision/Resolution" field in order to justify a
>negative vote? Still someone (Roger?) will have to compile the
>reasons given by negative voters into a coherent "group resolution".
>Is it possible that REVCOM would be satisfied with the voting
>results without an accompanying reason?
This is discussed in "Comment Resolution Procedure for Sponsor Ballot
Recirculation of IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4
<http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_18r1.pdf>.
That document says:
* "Recirculation package will include cover letter,
P802.16-REVd/D5delta, and rebuttals of unresolved Disapprove
comments. Those rebuttals will be constructed by the Chair and Vice
Chair and based, where possible, on previously-submitted reply
comments. "
* "Suggestions to reject should include specific rebuttal text
appropriate for use in recirculation."
>Avi
I encourage everyone to re-read the "Comment Resolution Procedure
<http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_18r1.pdf>.
Roger