Re: [STDS-802-16] update on P802.16-REVd Sponsor Ballot status
Hello Roger,
Given all the hectic activity with respect to REVd, I find it difficult to
allocate adequate time to the review of 802.16e draft. I am sure that many
group members share same feeling.
It would be of great value to allow couple more days beyond the original May
7 deadline, say - May 9 or May 10, in order to allow more diligent review of
this important 802.16e draft. This will leave less time for the review
comments, but it is well worth the quality of the comments initially
submitted.
I'll appreciate if you consider this suggestion positively and rule on this
issue.
Best Regards,
Naftali
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 9:02 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16] update on P802.16-REVd Sponsor Ballot status
I'd like to remind everyone of where we stand in P802.16-REVd status.
We have the following key deadlines ahead:
*May 4: Deadline for revised comments
*May 5: Revised comments posted.
*May 7: Deadline for change of vote by BRC members on revised comments.
*May 10: P802.16-REVd/D5 completed by editor.
*May 14: Second 15-days recirc opens
*May 14: P802.16-REVd/D5 submitted for RevCom approval
If the second recirc is clean, then the standard will be set for
approval on June 24.
If the second recirc forces a third recirc, then the next chance to
approve the standard is September 23. However, we don't need to wait
that long to complete our work. If do we need a third recirc, I will
encourage us to make sure that the third recirc is the last one, so
we can submit the final draft ASAP (in June, probably). If we make
more changes as a result of the second recirc, we once again open up
the possibility of objections in the third recirc, which would lead
to a fourth recirc. This work will come to an end after the BRC
decides to stop changing the draft. I encourage the BRC to make this
decision as soon as possible.
I order to minimize the need for new comments in the second recirc,
I'd like you to review the currently approved comments for
consistency. If you find problems of basic ambiguity or
inconsistency, I suggest that you send me an additional comment for
inclusion in the final voting round. I won't consider any new
content, but I'll consider including simple fixes of plainly broken
content.
Roger
>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
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.
************************************************************************************