Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

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