Re: [RPRWG] Re: Comments from Non-Members
Bob -
Your position on this is almost entirely consistent with long-established
practice in 802. The only correction I would make is that the comments of
non-voters are not *required to be* carried in a recirculation ballot.
(By "carried in...etc" I take it you mean the requirement for
the recirculation ballot package to include rejected comments along with
agreed WG rebuttals). The WG is of course at liberty to circulate any
comments from non-voters that they have rejected, with their reasons, as
part of a recirculation. And given that non-voters have a nasty habit of
showing up as future voters, this can often be a very smart
move.
Regards,
Tony
At 11:09 02/01/2003 -0500, Robert D. Love wrote:
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 -----
- From: Castellano,
Robert
- To: 'Tom Alexander' ;
Castellano, Robert
- Cc: Takefman, Mike ;
Robert D. Love
- 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
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Tom Alexander
[mailto:tom@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
- Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 11:33 AM
- To: Castellano, Robert
- Cc: Takefman, Mike; Robert D. Love
- Subject: Re: Comments from Non-Members
- 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 -----
- From: Robert D. Love
- To: Castellano, Robert
- Cc: Takefman, Mike ;
Alexander, Tom
- 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 -----
- From: Castellano,
Robert
- To: Robert D. Love (E-mail)
- 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
- http://www.ieee802.org/17/documents/announcements/802.17%20Interim%20Meeting%20AnnouncementJan03.htm
-
- 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
Regards,
Tony