|
Robert, I will let Mike make the last declaration
on this subject. However, it has been my long experience that all comments
received by any of the WGs to their draft standards are carefully reviewed and
acted on (This includes rejection of comments by both voting and non-voting
members). For non-voting members, their comments are not carried in a
recirculation ballot.
That said, if there is any non-voting member that wants to insure that
their comment are treated like the comments of voting members, i.e. carried in a
recirculation ballot, then, again, if they will send the full comment to me
the way they would like it to be submitted, at least 24 hours ahead of the
deadline for voting, then I will submit that comment along with my other
comments.
I am copying all of the 802.17 reflector on this note to provide notice to
one and all of this offer.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love President, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance President,
LAN Connect Consultants 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh,
NC 27615 Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919
810-7816 email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx
Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 11:10
PM
Subject: RE: Comments from
Non-Members
Tom
and Bob,
Thanks for the clarifications and I agree. My
original email discussed non-members providing comments
against
the
draft. After seeing your replies, I realize I was incorrectly using the
term "non-member" as someone
who
did not have voting priveledges that may have attended at least one meeting to
have access
to
the drafts and CRD on the members site. I realize now these are in
fact "non-voting" members.
Pardon my confusion of terms.
Now
that I have my terms straight, what I meant to say in my earlier email is
that
"non-voting" members should still be able to submit
comments against the draft and the
ballots. My assumption was that Liu and Li were
non-voting members since they had
read
the draft and had comments on it. If they are indeed non-voting
members they should
be
able to submit comments like everyone else. If they are not members
at all
then
they should informed they need to attend one meeting to gain
membership and
from
then on can submit comments. Is there some point where only
comments are
accepted from voting-members?
thanks,
robert
Robert,
Bob is, as usual, correct. The comment data
base is supposed to flag whether the commenter is a VOTER or not, and not
whether he/she is a MEMBER. By definition, only WG members (those who
actually attend WG sessions in person) can have access to the draft, and
hence only WG members can feasibly comment on the draft. (To vote on the
draft, you have to be not just a member but also a voting member.) To
generally and publicly invite comments directly from non-members invites
questions from the IEEE Standards Board as to why our drafts are being made
public, when they are supposed to be copyrighted by the IEEE. The chair is
authorized to include selected and qualified non-members to review and
comment on the draft, but not empowered to do this for some large and
uncontrolled group.
I need to update the draft review announcement
to indicate that Tech-Binding comments will be tracked only if they have
been submitted by voters (not merely members).
Best regards,
- Tom A.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 7:21
AM
Subject: Re: Comments from
Non-Members
Bob, I don't know that Liu and Li have access
to the password protected web site to be able to enter comments.
Note that their remarks were against a previous draft, and I don't know
how they got that draft. In addition, since the last reviews were
not official ballots, all comments were merely for the purpose of
improving the draft. Once we go to ballot, there is a more official
process. By having a voting member submit the comment, there is a
guarantee that the comment MUST be addressed properly.
I got the idea of responding the way I did
after seeing an 802.3 ballot, where as a formal part of the ballot
announcement, one of the voting members was designated as the person that
would submit comments on behalf of any non-voters.
In regard to your other thoughts, I find
myself in agreement with you, and believe that over time, this may happen
in 802. However, for now, the rules do not enforce your
philosophy. Fortunately, virtually all working groups understand
that deficiencies in a draft need to be addressed. Therefore, it is
general practice to carefully consider all comments submitted by voters
and non-voters alike.
Bob, one of the problems we have with wide
review of the documents is that the IEEE requires that we only let
"qualified" people see the copyrighted drafts to protect IEEE's copyrights
on the standard. The change that is really needed is to have all of
our standards, and our pre-standard drafts available to anyone that wishes
to read them. In that case, it would be easy for any interested
party to comment on them. Of course, that could lead to its own set
of abuses from those that would want to torpedo a new standard, so we will
have to enter those grounds carefully when the time comes.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love President, Resilient Packet Ring
Alliance President, LAN Connect Consultants 7105 Leveret
Circle Raleigh, NC 27615 Phone: 919
848-6773 Mobile: 919
810-7816 email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx
Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002
9:58 PM
Subject: Comments from
Non-Members
Bob,
In the
previous comment cycles it was possible for non-members to submit
comments via
the CRD to
Tom against the draft. In your email to Liu and Li you indicated
they could not
submit
comments via the comment resolution database. I would think that
non-members
should still
be able to submit comments, however their ballots would not be
counted. I also
believe the comment database flags whether
comments were submitted by a member or
non-member, if member status is taken into
count for comment prioritization, etc.
I think the
working group should consider allowing non-members to directly submit
comments against
RPR
drafts. I think it is a more open/constructive method for
contributing comments. It may
also provide
the incentive for them to begin participating in the working
group.
I think it
will help improve the quality of the standard as well as speed its
completion.
I would be
concerned that we are not getting the volume of comments needed to
really
identify all
the bugs and issues.
thanks,
robert
To:
Liu Enhui and
Li Jian
First I want to thank you and your team for continuing to look
into ways to improve the 802.17 draft. In addition, I want to
address the procedural issues surrounding your request to have your
proposal reviewed, and then to receive a response on that review.
I am addressing these issues for your benefit, and for the benefit of
others that may have ideas on improving the 802.17 draft and are not
certain on the best way to proceed to get their comments seriously
considered.
All changes to the draft will be made as a result of resolving
ballot comments. Any balloters that support your proposal are free
to point to sections of the draft they believe are currently deficient
or wrong, and suggest your draft, or some modification of it as
replacement text. In addition, if any of the Ad Hoc groups
embraces your proposal they may take it and possibly enhance it,
and then present it as their collective proposal, in addition to
referencing the proposal in their ballot comments on the draft.
There is no individual or sub-group that has the right to express
the views of the working group on a proposal that the working group has
not reviewed and commented on by way of a formal motion.
Finally, one additional action that you can take to enhance the
likelihood that your proposal will be carefully considered is to come to
the January interim meeting and make a formal presentation on your
proposal, explaining why it is necessary and what the resultant benefits
are. This final step should be in addition to having someone
submit a ballot comment recommending the adoption of your
proposal.
Note, details on registering for the January interim meeting,
including making hotel reservations, are posted on
Best regards,
Robert D. Love President, Resilient Packet Ring
Alliance President, LAN Connect Consultants 7105 Leveret
Circle Raleigh, NC 27615 Phone: 919
848-6773 Mobile: 919
810-7816 email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx
Fax: 208
978-1187
|