Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

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