Re: [STDS-802-16] Concerns regarding leftover comment resolution
Jose,
Yes, the scope of the BRC recirc is strictly limited to review of the
comment resolutions (those rejected as well as those accepted).
Roger
At 08:00 -0800 2004-12-01, Puthenkulam, Jose P wrote:
>Carl,
>
>As I understand it the SB recirc is when scope is limited. But as the
>next recirc is a BRC recirculation, does it really limit scope. I guess
>Roger maybe able to clarify this.
>
>Best regards,
>jose
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
>carl.eklund@NOKIA.COM
>Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:37 AM
>To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Concerns regarding leftover comment
>resolution
>
>Rainer,
>I think the right thing to do is to accept the comments and let the
>editor(s) draft (according to his best abilities) the text that attempts
>to fix the problem. If it fixes the problem fine, if not it can be
>caught in later rounds of the SB.
>
>BR Carl
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of ext Rainer
>> Ullmann
>> Sent: 01 December, 2004 20:12
>> To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Concerns regarding leftover comment
>> resolution
>>
>>
>> Along the same line as Carl's comment:
>> There are plenty comments that don't include any specific
>> text as suggested
>> remedy. Hence they should be rejected on that ground because
>> to editor can
>> not implement changes without proper instructions. On the
>> other hand these
>> comments may raise relevant issues. So if we were to reject them, the
>> opportunity to fix these issues gets lost since we can't
>> revisit them. If we
>> accept them, in order to keep the option to revisit, what's
>> the editor going
>> to do ?
>>
>> BR Rainer
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
>> carl.eklund@NOKIA.COM
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 6:27 AM
>> To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: [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
>>