Re: [STDS-802-16] Concerns regarding leftover comment resolution
Carl,
Thanks for clearly expressing your concerns about the process.
The situation is not really so grim. Things turn on this key
sentence: "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."
In fact, this statement is incorrect, and I am happy to correct you.
A recirculation is, in essence, a review of the comment resolutions.
That's what is planned for the upcoming "ballot resolution committee
recirc." In the recirc, there are two kinds of comments:
(a) "I object to the resolution of Comment Z because the change it
makes to the draft is a bad one, because..."
(b) "I object to the resolution of Comment Z because the reason for
rejecting the comment is invalid , because..."
Regarding the 427 leftover comments, if one is approved but you don't
like the approved change, then you are encouraged to submit a comment
in the BRC recirc. On the other hand, if a comment is rejected but
you feel that it raised a valid point, you are equally encouraged to
submit a comment. Such a comment would be in scope because you would
be arguing that the reason for rejection was invalid. In fact, the
process that we are using does not provide a reason! Therefore, it is
within scope to object to the resolution of any of the 427 comments
on if either (a) it was accepted and resulted in a change to the
draft, or (b) it was rejected.
[When we do the formal recirc to the Sponsor Ballot Group, we
recirculate rebuttals only to the unsatisfied Disapprove comments.
However, in this process, we are recirculating everything.]
On this basis, I disagree with your advice for people to vote
"accept" on questionable comments just to keep them alive. They will
be alive in either case. However, if the comment is accepted and an
inappropriate change is inserted, it will take a 75% vote to get that
change corrected. I would advise people to vote Reject unless they
are comfortable with the change. If the comment is rejected, it will
remain alive, and someone can propose a better solution for
consideration at Session #35.
Roger
At 16:26 +0200 2004-12-01, carl.eklund@NOKIA.COM wrote:
>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