| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Dear Phillip, I have a suggestion to proceed the “Call for Reply Comments” step and the upcoming Taipei meeting more productively. AFAIK, there’s condition for a comment to be considered as a valid one not as an out-of-scope one in this round because we already achieved more than 75% approval in the previous recirc #3. Let me refer the relevant parts from the clause 5.4.3.3 Comments in the ballot from IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual. “Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.” Therefore, I believe that we need to put high priority to resolve the following in-scope comments. 1) Bottom line is the comments from the Sponsor Ballot members who disapproved in this recirc #4 and also comments from Sponsor Ballot members which are related with the subject of current disapproval voters’ unresolved comments. 2) Comments about the changed portions from D9 to D10. 3) Comments about portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes from D9 to D10. Therefore, I have following suggestions to move forward more productively. 1) It would be great if IEEE 802.16m leadership can spend a time to go over the submitted comments whether we could give high priority. 2) Allocate as much time as possible to hear from Sponsor Ballot members in the upcoming Taipei meeting so that we can move forward toward March completion. Best Regards, Junghoon From: Phillip Barber [mailto:pbarber@HUAWEI.COM] The 4th recirculation ballot of the IEEE 802.16m Sponsor Ballot has closed. See the below email from Roger Marks with details on the ballot results. This note is a Call for Reply Comments, with a deadline of Monday 10 January 2011 at 9:00 AM Taipei time <http://tinyurl.com/2bdtn2n>. The Commentary file will open to the view in which you can begin entering reply comments. Use the "Submit Reply Comments" tab in the upper right corner to export your replies to a file for uploading, per the embedded instructions. Reply comments, in "cmtr" format, need to be uploaded to the “sb_16m” upload directory <http://dot16.org/ul/ul.cgi?command=viewupload&database=sb_16m_db>. The Ballot ID tag "sb_16m" is embedded in the Commentary database. Thanks, IEEE 802.16 TGm Vice Chair From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org] P802.16m/D10 was reviewed in IEEE-SA Sponsor Ballot Recirc #4, from 3-18 December. The results are: |