RE: [RPRWG] D2.4 Ballot Status
Colleagues,
I was merely addressing the procedural aspects of the original question.
The quality issues are the domain of the WG.
Best regards,
- Tom Alexander
Chief Editor, P802.17
-----Original Message-----
From: rdd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rdd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 7:07 AM
To: dvj@xxxxxxxxxxxx; tom@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: crk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx; kkrama@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] D2.4 Ballot Status
To address David James' points, I will not vote approval if there is
significant sentiment along the lines he indicates when I receive the
sponsor ballot.
Bob D.
-----Original Message-----
From: David V James [mailto:dvj@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 9:43 AM
To: Tom Alexander
Cc: Kalmanek,Charles R,JR (Charles); Doverspike,Robert (Bob);
stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] D2.4 Ballot Status
Tom,
It would have been nice if the requirements could have been more related
to the quality of the document, such as:
1) Reviewers have actually read the document
(the 0 comments indicates most have not)
2) The document is actually understandable & unambiguous
(the 100's of comments indicates otherwise)
While sending it to Sponsor may be legal and seem like a neat idea
(from a marketing perspective), the unresolved issues and
ambiguous text will be even more painful and time consuming
to fix through the Sponsor ballot review process.
DVJ
David V. James
3180 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Home: +1.650.494.0926
+1.650.856.9801
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax: +1.360.242.5508
Base: dvj@xxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tom Alexander
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 9:58 PM
To: rdd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Cc: crk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] D2.4 Ballot Status
Bob,
The draft will be forwarded to Sponsor Ballot only after (a) the WG has
voted to
do so, (b) it has met the 802 requirements as outlined in the LMSC rules,
and
(c) the SEC approves the Sponsor Ballot request.
Best regards,
- Tom Alexander
Chief Editor, P802.17
----- Original Message -----
From: rdd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rdd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: tom@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tom@xxxxxxxxxxxx> ; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: crk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:crk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 6:20 PM
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] D2.4 Ballot Status
When does this go to sponsor ballot?
Bob Doverspike
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Alexander [mailto:tom@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 3:21 PM
To: RPR WG reflector
Subject: [RPRWG] D2.4 Ballot Status
Colleagues,
Enclosed please find the ballot status for D2.4. Note that the
ballot has passed with an 81.8% approval ratio.
I would like all of the voters to check their comment and
ballot status. Note in particular that some of the voters have
agreed with the resolution of all of their Technically Binding
comments against D2.3, and their votes have been changed
to Approve. If any voter feels that this was done in error,
please contact me immediately.
Best regards,
- Tom Alexander
Chief Editor, P802.17
winmail.dat