Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
Vladimir,
We are at the end of the line, and time is too short for reply
comments. People have had one chance after another to get their
comments right. If a comment isn't right, then I think you should
vote to reject. If you think there is a valid point here, then we
should use the amendment mechanism to address it. Fortunately, we
have an active amendment project - P802.16e - in which to include any
additional changes.
Roger
At 15:25 +0300 04/06/03, Vladimir Yanover wrote:
>Roger,
>
>There are useful comments in database, in which remedy is incomplete or
>contains errors.
>If we reject them, the problem stays, if accept, the text becomes
>inconsistent.
>Is there a procedural way to modify suggested remedy?
>In D4 we had step of reply comments and it was very useful
>
>Thanks
>
>Vladimir
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 7:17 AM
>To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
>Subject: +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation
>Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
>
>
>When I posted the P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation comments, I said that
>I would announce the on-line comment resolution process in a few days
>and told you to expect the decision-making process to be quick. I
>hope you have had time to read the comments.
>
>The process is described in IEEE 802.16-04/31
><http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_31.pdf>. Members of the IEEE
>802.16 Working Group <http://ieee802.org/16/members.html> are the
>members of the Ballot Resolution Committee and eligible to vote. They
>should read IEEE 802.16-04/31 for details. It explains the need to
>make a quick decision on these comments.
>
>The voting deadline is 5 June AOE.
>
>Regards,
>
>Roger
>
>
>
>>The P802.16-REVd Recirc #2 balloting period has closed.
>>
>>The good news is that we are down to one Disapprove voter (Nico van
>>Waes). He submitted one Technical Binding comment, which was a
>>reiteration of a previous comment.
>>
>>The bad news is that we received a total of 171 comments.
>> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_30.zip
>>
>>The following show the members of the Sponsor Ballot Group who
>>submitted comments, along with the number of comments:
>>
>>Tal Kaitz 2
>>Itzik Kitroser 11
>>Yigal Leiba 44
>>Cor van de Water 3
>>Nico van Waes 1
>>
>>I received additional comments from other individuals who do not
>>belong to the Sponsor Ballot Group:
>>
>>Raja Banerjea 3
>>Changhoi Koo 68
>>Lalit Kotecha 14
>>Wonil Roh 25
>>
>>
>>We will now move on to an on-line comment resolution process in
>>which the members of the Ballot Resolution Committee will be the
>>Members of the IEEE 802.16 Working Group. I will provide details in
>>a few days. Expect the decision-making process to be quick.
>>
>>For those of you who are wondering where this leaves us: we have met
>>the RevCom conditions for D5 to be approved as an IEEE standard on
>>24 June. If we reject all of these comments, no further
>>recirculation will be necessary. However, we also have the option to
> >accept comments, produce draft D6, open a third recirculation, and
> >remove D5 from the June RevCom agenda.
> >
> >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.
>************************************************************************************