| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi, Roger:
Thank you for your response and the follow up Email on the procedure. I am satisfied with the number reservation system.
Regards,
Peiying
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:22 AM
To: Zhu, Peiying [CAR:DP13:EXCH]
Cc: stds-802-16@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16] TGe contributions filed
Peiying,
I do understand that the collision problem is a nuisance for the
contributors. Collisions can happen any time, but they become a
particular problem when upload traffic is heavy (near the deadline).
As our contribution load has grown, the collision problem has grown.
So has the problem of people ignoring the defined procedures. This is
a big hassle for everyone. It's a huge pain for me, and everyone else
feels it when then can't figure out which document a comment refers
to.
I'm not going to write software to automatically assign contribution
numbers. Anyway, I don't really think we need it. It's easy enough to
use the current upload system to simply reserve a number. I'll have
written up a procedure for this that I'll be introducing momentarily.
Automated numbering doesn't help if people ignore the rules. While I
agree that "most people have intention to follow the rules", a large
minority of our participants apparently feel that the rules are for
someone else to observe. For example, in the current Recirc Ballot
#14b submissions:
*30 uploaded documents ignore the document numbering format rules, so
they have an incorrect document number regardless of the serial
number.
*Several contributions were submitted as revisions of documents that
belong to someone else and/or are on a different topic.
*Many of the contributions have no headers, or incorrect document
numbers in the headers.
*Several people decided to ignore the defined procedure for
submitting comments.
I'm about to send a note defining mandatory procedures for
contributing documents. Along with it is a process to reserve
contribution numbers. Together, with everyone's cooperation, I think
we can make this work.
Roger
At 17:02 -0400 04/06/28, Peiying Zhu wrote:
>Hi, Roger:
>
>How about setting up an automatic document number issuing system to
>avoid number collision?
>
>It was a quite painful experience when many people were uploading
>contributions simultaneously. Imagine that one had to look at an
>unused number first, then put in the word document, convert to pdf
>file, by the time finishing the conversion and uploading the
>document, you found out that someone just uploaded a contribution
>with the same number. We had to start all over again.
>
>I believe most people have intention to follow the rules.
>
>Regards,
>
>Peiying Zhu
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks
>[<mailto:r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG>mailto:r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG]
>Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 6:40 AM
>To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: [STDS-802-16] TGe contributions filed
>
>
>I have filed the TGe contributions:
>
><http://ieee802.org/16/tge/#Contributions>http://ieee802.org/16/tge/#Co
>ntributions
>
>There are indeed a lot: 122 so far.
>
>Some notes:
>
>*This time, I have filed only the most recent revision.
>
>*There were a number of duplicate numbers. The server doesn't allow
>duplicate file names, but too many people still ignore the file and
>document numbering rules, so we can end up with collisions. In these
>cases, I have sometimes needed to renumber documents to the top of
>the stack. Some document numbers are therefore a long way from the
>one they were submitted with. This may cause problems in
>interpreting comments. It looks like I will need to become a lot
>more strict about the contribution process; perhaps I'll simply
>reject documents that don't follow the process.
>
>*As Brian said earlier, we are not accepting multiple rounds of
>document revisions in Recirc #14b. You are entitled to make a SINGLE
>revision of your contribution, taking reply comments into account,
>between July 2 and July 7. Additional revisions will NOT be accepted.
>
>Roger