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

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
>