[STDS-802-16] Concerns regarding leftover comment resolution
Roger, fellow members of the ballot resolution committee
while looking at the 427 leftover comments that we have and trying to weigh my position on each of them a deep concern has crept into my head. I honestly sometimes don't know how to vote in order attempt to change things in the direction I intend to. I'll try to give an example that sheds light on my dilemma.
Say section x.y contains a problem that I didn't catch in my own comments. Say that someone else caught the problem but offered a solution that I don't like.
Now how should I vote? If I reject the comment I would effectively advocate keeping the text as it is . If I accept the comment I would advocate a text change, but not one that I like. In a sense I feel that I am in a lose/lose situation.
Now since the SB rules in my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) are such that if the text remains unchanged from one recirc to another it freezes and comments on that text can be ruled out of scope as a procedural issue. Now the ballot resolution committee can obviously choose to entertain non-binding comments on any section of the document at any stage. The comments, however, would be non-binding and not guaranteed to be examined by the resolution committee. So voting to reject is a bad option.
Also voting to approve is not very appealing. Text that possibly is worse than the original goes in ( it might be hard to get out...) but gives me an opening to comment on the changed text and attempt to get 'good text' in. Actually if the proposed fix is really bad and breaks things the situation is better as the later round of SB might actually fix the problem (however this is far from guaranteed as can be seen with 802.16-2004). To me this seems the less bad option of the two bad ones.
And all of this takes place without any proper technical discussion. In my mind the situation is somewhat absurd and I want to make use of the opportunity to express my strong dislike of the procedure we have chosen to follow. I also serously doubt that it will serve to shorten the 'time to market' of an implementable interoperable standard.
I am enclined to encourage people to make a accept decision on comments that aren't crystal clear to keep the text 'alive' until such a time that we can consider it appropriately. Even voting accept on all of the comments might not be that bad of an idea ( I know the editor doesn't agree...) as this also would change the text extensively and leave the door open for new comments and proper resolutions later. It is much better in my mind than to abstain or vote reject on comments adressing sections that needs to be fixed.
BR Carl