Re: [RPRWG] [Fwd: Ballot Reminder - your thoughts?]
Colleagues,
I agree with the general sentiments expressed by Bob and Kshitij, which is
to
vote responsibly with a view to obtaining a good, technically correct and
complete standard in an expeditious manner. I would, however like to offer a
couple of clarifications.
Regarding PICS entries: note that the general sentiment that I have heard
expressed in 802 groups is that PICS entries are an editorial matter rather
than a technical matter. This is not as counterintuitive as it seems. Note
that
the PICS entries are based entirely on the words "shall" and "may" that
occur in normative portions of the text. Therefore, PICS entries may be
regarded as automatic (one day, perhaps, we'll have an 802 PICS generator
program that scans the text and creates all of the PICS tables!). The WG
therefore automatically triggers the creation and removal of PICS entries by
adding or removing the "shall"s and "may"s in the clause text. The editors
are
expected to note all of the "shall"s and "may"s in the draft, and ensure
that
the PICS are changed to reflect the change in the normative text. There is
no
vote or comment required in connection with the PICS; for example, a vote to
insert a PICS entry is redundant with the vote that inserted the
corresponding
"shall". As there is no point voting twice on the same matter - especially
when
it's not possible to vote differently in the two votes! - PICS have been
normally
considered to be an editorial matter. Certainly PICS entries can and do
attract comments, but these should not be technical issues.
Given this situation, I have instructed the editors to not pay too much
attention
to the PICS entries until the draft reaches a reasonably stable state.
Otherwise,
the editors would waste far too much time adding and removing PICS entries
as normative portions of the draft came and went. For instance, note that in
the last draft, Clauses 10 and 11 were combined into a single clause. This
is
a major change in the format of the draft. If the Clause 10/11 editor had
previously spent a lot of time generating PICS entries, most of his work
would
have been wasted. Further, I defined "reasonably stable" as "draft achieves
passing ballot"; once the draft reaches 75% approval, there is a good chance
that it will not experience major surgery such as the above. Hence my
instructions
to the editors were to hold off on the PICS until this point. You will note
the
obvious incompatibility between these instructions, and the view that the
draft
should not be allowed to pass WG ballot without a complete PICS!
Regarding ballot: it is worth pointing out that the IEEE Standards staff do
not
even recognize any ballot excepting Sponsor Ballot. In some of the other
(non-802) groups, especially the smaller ones, it is not uncommon to avoid
the
entire process of WG ballot and go directly to Sponsor Ballot. Therefore, it
would seem that there is not a whole lot of harm done in starting down the
road to Sponsor Ballot, especially if Sponsor Ballot is the "real" balloting
process anyway.
I would also note that even if the draft passes (and in theory we then go to
voting
only on changed sections), it would be grossly irresponsible of the WG to
throw
out a technical comment pointing out an actual error in a portion of the
draft,
on the grounds that it was not open to comment. In my experience, the option
of disallowing comments on unchanged portions of the draft is used sparingly
and only to achieve convergence. Further, note that once a draft passes, ALL
technically binding comments linked to negative votes go to the SEC, whether
they were made on portions of the draft that were open to comment or not.
Hence the WG has a strong incentive to resolve all comments, without
resorting
to tactics that could be interpreted as suppressing dissenting views.
All that being said, I reiterate: it is up to us to vote responsibly.
Best regards,
- Tom Alexander
Chief Editor, P802.17
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kshitij Kumar" <kkumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Mike Takefman'" <tak@xxxxxxxxx>; "RPRWG" <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 10:09 AM
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
>