Re: [STDS-802-16] Maintenance process question
A recommended change to the below suggestion is to allow negative reply
comment, but with a 50% vote needed to revisit the resolution the group
already made. This way, possible new insight presented by the negative
reply could be considered, and if the group agrees by 50%, then the
comment resolution is revisited, otherwise, it is not.
The document also makes no distinction between editorial vs. technical
comments. Will commenters be asked to tag their comment as editorial or
technical? The group first should then agree with the commenter
designation or recast the comment based on majority decision for
editorial or technical. The group can then spend time on the technical
comments and file the editorial ones in it's working document.
Floyd
-----Original Message-----
From: Vladimir Yanover [mailto:vladimir.yanover@ALVARION.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 5:44 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] Maintenance process question
John,
I have a question about the document
http://ieee802.org/16/maint/docs/80216maint-06_003.pdf
<http://ieee802.org/16/maint/docs/80216maint-06_003.pdf>
Is it correct that according to the suggested process a single member
can actually block resolution of any comment by just submitting a
negative reply comment? I just look at
"If reply comments are received on a given comment specifying anything
other than to accept the recommendation of the Maintenance group, the
comment remains open for further discussion by the group". While the
comment is open, the resolution is not included into the working
document, other comments are not requested to be consistent with such
resolution etc.
If this concern is valid, I'd recommend the following change: a comment
resolution suggested by the group if supported 75% majority, makes the
comment "complete" i.e. same rule as in formal corrigenda.
Also it is not clear to me what is this "ad hoc" mentioned in the second
bullet at p.2 (by the way, commenters need line numbers to comment the
"Maintenance Process" document.
Thanks
Vladimir
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.
************************************************************************
************