| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
See my comments in-line. Thanks, IEEE 802.16 TGm Vice Chair From: Junghoon Jee
[mailto:jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR] Phillip, My comments are inline. From: Phillip Barber
[mailto:pbarber@HUAWEI.COM] Junghoon, I have given all of the support that, as
anyone in leadership on IEEE matters, should give. I have directed you to the
relevant ballot comments for attention. I have even specifically enumerated
comments for special attention. For those comments that I have questioned their
scope relevance in the current recirculation, commenters should expect the
question to arise during comment resolution. The group will have to make
determination at that time. JJ> Sure, I appreciate that. Since I will almost certainly be Chairing
meetings where many of these comments will be resolved, I must maintain a
degree of impartiality, of neutrality. So I will not attempt to inappropriately
bias the group a priori of the actual comment resolution process in Don’t ask me to go farther than I
have already done, and I doubt that others in TGm leadership will be inclined
either. JJ> I think there’s
misunderstanding between us. I think we have a common consensus in focusing
on resolving the comments from the sponsor members whether they’re
from the disapproved voters or from the approved voters. If you think that
focusing on resolving the comments from disapproved voters is a biased one then
it’s okay to me because it’s
your own authority in leading the group. I just shared my individual thought
about the importance of focusing on the comments from the disapproved voters. [[Phillip Barber]] you misunderstand. I am not ‘biasing’
the group by advising that they give special attention and consideration to
comments associated with Disapprove votes, nor when I advise the group to review
some subset of those comments for determination of scope in the recirculation.
I prefer not to test any issue of bias by going beyond those advisories to
advocacy. By the way, I have to say that I was somewhat
confused about where the number, ‘164’
came from in your previous statement, “I would hate to see any lack of attention to the other 164
non-Editorial comments from Approve voters in the ballot.” As Roger announced, the total number of Sponsor Ballot comments is ‘76’. Therefore, the total number of the comments from
Approved voters in the IEEE-SA Sponsor Ballot Recirc #4 is ‘54’ when we subtract ‘22’ comments from Disapproved voters. It seems that you are mixing together with the
comments from WG members when counting the total number of comments from
Approved voters. Therefore, I think that the equal priority is
given to the followings comments: 1)
Comments from Sponsor members who Disapproved 2)
Comments from Sponsor members who Approved. 3)
Comments from 802.16 WG members [[Phillip Barber]] from IEEE-SA processing rules requirements
there is a difference between comments submitted through the two venues:
myBallot and sb_16m upload directory. But even from an IEEE-SA and 802 perspectives
there are no practical differences on how those comments should be treated.
In fact many Approve voters do not bother to submit comments using myBallot and
just use the commentary tool and 16m upload. So asserting that all comments uploaded
directly to the sb_16m directory are not from sponsor ballot members is false.
Comments submitted to the sb_16m upload directory are from a mix of sponsor
ballot members and non-members. All comments from Approve voters, Abstain
votes, or non-voters deserve reasoned resolution regardless of how they are
submitted, provided they are submitted on time and in a manner that is decipherable.
We have 164 of such comments in the recirculation. As I said before, I am not disregarding the
sincere inputs from 3) which can definitely help to enhance the quality of the
draft. However, I am somewhat concerned about not
having enough discussion about 1) when an equal priority is given to 1), 2) and
3). As an individual member of the group, I just
thought that it’s helpful for us to move
forward if we can try our best to resolve 1). At least, I would like to have an
enough discussion with the sponsor members to understand their opinions and
hopefully would like to resolve their concerns rather than simply rejecting
their comments. [[Phillip Barber]] your concern is noted. 16m always provides
disproportionate time to resolve comments identified as associated with a Disapprove
vote. The upcoming meeting will be no different in that regard. Given that in
past meetings we have successfully resolved in excess of a thousand technical
comments, with a mere 182 non-editorial comments to resolve in this
recirculation I don’t foresee difficulty in ensuring reasonable time for
discussion on matters. Reasonable time is not infinite time. It is possible
that submitters of some comments, including comments from Disapprove voters,
would prefer more time for discussion on their matter. This is a matter of
balance and the Chairs will make procedural determination on how much time
individual matters deserve for informed consideration. However, please remember again that I’m
admiring the IEEE 802.16m TG leaders’ own
authorities to handle this SB comment resolution procedures. Of course Members are free to have frank
discussions, including through the 802.16 reflector, on the merits of various
comments and remedies. Members are not equally constrained as those in
leadership. Thanks, IEEE 802.16 TGm Vice Chair Best Regards, Junghoon From: Junghoon Jee
[mailto:jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR] Dear Phillip, [[Phillip Barber]] You can find the comments that are
‘Part of a Disapprove Vote’ by Finding the comments marked with an
X in the ‘Dis’ box in the commentary database. The
‘Dis’ box is immediately to the right of the comment
‘Type’ listbox on the Commentary form. I’d appreciate the detailed explanation for finding
out the important comments for the IEEE 802.16m TG needs to resolve in the
upcoming meeting in Best Regards, Junghoon From: Phillip Barber
[mailto:pbarber@HUAWEI.COM] See my comments in-line. Thanks, IEEE 802.16 TGm Vice Chair From: Junghoon Jee
[mailto:jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR] Dear Phillip, Thank greatly for providing the quick feedback! Please find inline replies starting with JJ>. From: Phillip Barber
[mailto:pbarber@HUAWEI.COM] Junghoon, Certainly Members should give every
consideration and attention to comments marked as ‘Part of Disapprove
Vote’ from Disapprove voters in the commentary database. There are a mere
22 comments marked as ‘Part of Disapprove Vote’, from only seven
Disapprove voters. And the majority of those comments are from only two or
three voters. I have little doubt that Members will give careful attention to
these comments. And, yes, each of the 22 comments (18
non-editorial, 4 editorial) marked as ‘Part of Disapprove Vote’
should be scrutinized by the Members to assure that the comments meet the recirculation
scope requirements. 16m leadership will also be looking at scope for these
comments. Some of the comments do not provide direction as to the rationale for
their scope in the recirculation. I would draw Members’ attention to
comments D012, D013, D014, D020, D024, D025, D026, D027, D029, D030. It may be
that these comments meet one of the three criteria to be in scope of the
recirculation, but they don’t specifically identify which criteria so
they deserve evaluation. JJ> I’d appreciate your clarification and
pointing out the comments that members need to pay attention. [[Phillip Barber]] You can find the comments that are
‘Part of a Disapprove Vote’ by Finding the comments marked with an
X in the ‘Dis’ box in the commentary database. The
‘Dis’ box is immediately to the right of the comment
‘Type’ listbox on the Commentary form. Remember that even if a ‘Part of
Disapprove Vote’ comment is determined to be out-of-scope of the
recirculation the group may still choose to deal with the comment rather than
just resolving it as out-of-scope of the recirculation; the group is not
compelled to resolve the comment as out-of-scope. This can be useful when a
comment may be out-of-scope but the group agrees on the need for the comment
remedy anyway. JJ> Sure, we should consider sponsors’
inputs as best as we can rather than categorizing them as out-of-scope. Still, in our haste to address these
important comments I would hate to see any lack of attention to the other 164
non-Editorial comments from Approve voters in the ballot. Almost certainly many
of these comments are sincere attempts to make last-minute repair to problem
areas in D10. We would do well to provide review and comment to get the best
possible remedies prepared prior to the meeting comment resolution. JJ> Definitely I agree with you! In principle, our major goal in this
sponsor ballot is to improve the quality of the draft by the inputs from our
sponsors. Not to mention the need to align ASN.1
code to the text, including proper ASN.1 code for proposed Control Msg Format
changes. JJ> Agreed, they are the important ones need to be fixed in this
round. Members have two weeks to prepare their
Reply Comments; ample time to do a thorough job. Thanks, IEEE 802.16 TGm Vice Chair Best Regards, Junghoon From: Junghoon Jee
[mailto:jhjee@etri.re.kr] Dear Phillip, I have a suggestion to proceed the “Call
for Reply Comments” step and the upcoming 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 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 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: |