| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Dear Phillip, Now, I get to understand your point! Sincerely 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] 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 Taipei where we can have a frank interactive discussion on the disposition of comments. 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 Taiwan by having enough discussions. 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 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: |