[STDS-802-16] more about final correction of Results of BRC voting on IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4 recirc comment resolutions
As I mentioned before, I've updated the database to r7:
http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_20r7.zip
I have every expectation that this is final. I am tired of this, and
so are you.
The numbers are:
20 Withdrawn
297 Accepted
28 Rejected
31 Reconsider
The changes affect the following three comments:
147 Accepted => Reconsider
275 Rejected => Reconsider
371 Rejected => Reconsider
There are two kind of changes incorporated:
(a) As Mark Cudak pointed out, I didn't properly translate some of
the submissions coming from Commentary 2. In fact, nearly all of the
technical difficulties I had arose because I originally expected to
have the whole WG working in Commentary 2 by now but had to fall back
to mixed use. I'm very sorry for this difficulty.
(b) I accepted some changes of vote by people who insisted that they
had made a voting error. This affected comments 193, 279, 280, 282,
and 371.
Roger
>Another embarrassing but very minor update: in 20r6, the Abstain
>count was incorrect. Thanks to Vladimir Yanover for noticing! I've
>fixed this and posted a new 20r6. I couldn't stand to make it r7,
>but I thought I needed to note the change in the file.
>
>Roger
>
>
>>[Oops: I made an error, accidentally duplicating some votes. The
>>new database, is r6, as noted below. There is only one change in
>>result: Comment 159 changed from Rejected to Reconsidered. I want
>>to thank Ofer Kelman for quickly calling the problem to my
>>attention. -Roger]
>>
>>The results of the BRC voting on the proposed resolutions of
>>comment received in the P802.16-REVd/D4 recirc are posted:
>> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_20r6.zip
>>
>>The numbers are:
>> 20 Withdrawn
>> 298 Accepted
>> 30 Rejected
>> 28 Reconsider
>>
>>The comments in the last category are those which received at least
>>40% but less than 75% approval. According to the procedure
>><http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_18r1.pdf>, the BRC will
>>reconsider these comments. Those who submitted the comments to be
>>reconsidered are now given the opportunity to revise their comment
>>once again, with a deadline of 4 May AOE.
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>
>>>Roger
>>>
>>>The deadline for revised IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4 comments has passed.
>>>The data is available here:
>>> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_20r4.zip
>>>
>>>The revised comments are in the fields "Recommendation", "Proposed
>>>Resolution", "Reason for Recommendation", and "Recommendation by".
>>>
>>>We also received a number of new and revised contributions. I've
>>>filed most of these on the TGd web page. I'll catch up with the
>>>last three soon.
>>>
>>>The Ballot Resolution Committee (BRC) will now begin considering
>>>each of these proposals. Each member may vote either "Accept" or
>>>"Reject" on each revised comment. See the procedure document for
>>>details.
>>>
>>>I will email the voting instructions to the BRC separately (I've
>>>had some technical difficulties, but I have a backup plan). In the
>>>meantime, I suggest that you carefully review the database and
>>>begin discussing the final comments with your colleagues as you
>>>deem appropriate.
>>>
>>>Roger
>>>
>>>
>>>>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