RE: [RPRWG] [Fwd: Ballot Reminder - your thoughts?]
People's Front of RPR,
Kshitij has very eloquently portrayed my precise concerns regarding draft
2.2 (the PICS), so I won't labour the point.
I have some questions about PICS (which at the moment are in comments, but I
can change the comment to suit the rules...)
1) Are PICS items to shall / may a relationship of the form:
a) one to one
b) many to one (more than one PICS per shall / may)
c) one to many (one PICS per more than one shall / may)
One, two or all three of a, b, and c may be true.
2) Should every shall source a PICS?
3) Should every may source a PICS?
4) What happens to words like will, can, should, is recommended etc?
Sam
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kshitij Kumar [mailto:kkumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 10:10 AM
> To: 'Mike Takefman'; RPRWG
> Subject: RE: [RPRWG] [Fwd: Ballot Reminder - your thoughts?]
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
> My interpretation of voting APPROVE (with or without
> comments) on this draft is that we are agree that the draft
> is complete (possibly with optional modifications).
>
> It is important for us to realize that this draft is still
> far from complete.
>
> For instance, one important area that is clearly lacking is
> the specification of the PICS Proforma. This crucial
> information will be the basis for claiming conformance with
> the standard.
>
> For example, Clause 5, Page 86 contains an editors note "This
> standards draft shall not be considered to be complete until
> this PICS proforma is complete. The editors estimate that the
> level of completeness of this PICS proforma is 5%." For
> Clause 6, Page 155 has a similar editor's note, except the
> level of completeness is 10%.
>
> And please look at the other PICS Proforma clauses as well.
>
> Since the editors have explicitly stated that the present
> draft is incomplete, and since an APPROVE vote on this draft
> would mean that we are in agreement with the draft (as it is
> today) becoming the standard, we need to vote DISAPPROVE to
> give the editors time to complete the draft, including the
> PICS Proforma, based on comments received this time.
>
> Because of the critical nature of the PICS Proforma, we must
> have a full 30 day review of the final PICS once it is
> completed, and not be forced to review it in a short
> recirculation ballot cycle, IMHO.
>
> After the review period - PICS entries - like anything else
> new coming into the draft - should be voted into the draft,
> one PICS entry at a time.
>
> I also do not agree with the view that the PICS can be
> ignored until sponsor ballot - they are too critical to be
> left till so late in the cycle.
>
> Further, allowing ONLY changed portions of the draft to be
> commented against, forces us away from the preferred method
> of improving the quality of the draft overall - since only a
> subset can be improved. I agree we need to do so according to
> the recirc process, but this means we should not really be
> trying to be in recirculation until after the next meeting.
>
> Therefore, if we are looking to progress the standard as
> quickly as possible, we must DISAPPROVE this draft, which has
> been declared incomplete by the editors, and to task the
> editors with completing the next draft including all of the
> new PICS, have those voted in one by one by the WG, and then
> to have that draft balloted prior to the next meeting.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kshitij Kumar.
> Director, System Architecture,
> Lantern Communications.
> 408-521-6806
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Takefman [mailto:tak@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 1:20 PM
> To: RPRWG
> Subject: [RPRWG] [Fwd: Ballot Reminder - your thoughts?]
>
>
>
> RPRWGers,
>
> the ballot runs for approximately 1 more week, please
> remember to get your votes in. Failure to respond to
> ballots will result in loss of voting rights.
>
> A reminder about process.
>
> A passing ballot does not imply that the draft will
> be forwarded to Sponsor Ballot. The WG must vote to
> forward the draft for Sponsor Ballot. What a passing
> ballot does is begin the recirculation process on
> the draft. Once we are in recirculations, you may
> only comment on changed portions of the draft or on
> areas affected by a change elsewhere. Hence the process
> begins to become bounded. As a WG, we should not forward
> a draft for sponsor until we have reached the point where
> improvements to the draft / concensus have been maximized.
>
> Thus your approve vote can be interpreted as either a
> belief that it is time to start getting the draft
> ready for sponsor ballot, or that you believe that it
> is time to begin to recirculate. Both are equivalent.
>
> In terms of voting approve with comments versus
> dissaprove with comments. If you fundamentally believe
> that something is broken, then you may choose to vote
> disapprove with comments. If you believe that something is
> broken, but believe that you can work with your
> fellow RPRWGers to resolve the comments you can vote
> approve with comments. There is risk in voting approve
> with comments, in that if the comment is not resolved
> to your satisfaction, but the ballot passed and the
> text is unchanged, then you are out of luck until the
> draft comes back in sponsor (and you end up being a
> member of the sponsor group, which is not guaranteed).
>
> Note: You may change your vote from approve to disapprove
> during recirculations. All you have to do is comment on a
> changed portion of text.
>
> Should a recirculated ballot fail, we are back to commenting
> on the entire draft (and the number advances to the next
> major revision).
>
> cheers,
>
> mike
>
> --
> Michael Takefman tak@xxxxxxxxx
> Manager of Engineering, Cisco Systems
> Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> 2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
>