RE: [802.21] Letter Ballot #1 Voting Reminder
A high approval rate is not a condition to close
the ballot. If the rate is over 75%, then you
have met the approval criterion. The additional
recircs are done not to improve the approval
ratio but to clear the comments, by recirculating
the changes and the rebuttals. If the WG makes
changes to resolve comments, then they open the
door to new comments on the changed material. As
long as the WG keeps accepting comments, it
invites new comments and further recirculations.
If a recirc includes rebuttals but few or no
changes, that's a good sign that the WG believes
that the document is mature. At this point,
closure of the ballot is imminent because,
without changes to respond to, few new comments
are likely to arise.
At this stage, the approval ratio is typically
well over 75%. However, that's not necessary.
Roger
At 05:35 PM -0400 06/04/25, Kiernan, Brian G. wrote:
>I can't swear to 96% on all the 802.16 ballots, but it sounds about right.
>
>With 802.16a, we did at least one recirc after
>reaching over 90%, finally hitting a 96.8% WG
>approval. With 802.16e, we did three WG recircs
>after reaching 93.8%, ultimately reaching 100%
>WG acceptance before requesting the EC to
>forward the Draft for Sponsor Ballot. Even with
>that, the 802.16e Sponsor Ballot took about a
>year, had 4 official recircs and some 4400
>comments by the time we got above 90%,
>ultimately closing out with 6 recircs and 98.5%
>approval before sending it on to RevCom.
>
>As Phil said, they like the big numbers, but
>sometimes it can take a long time to get thereŠ
>
>Brian
>
>
>From: Phillip Barber [mailto:pbarber@broadbandmobiletech.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 6:19 PM
>To: Peretz Feder; Gupta, Vivek G; Kiernan, Brian G.
>Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802.21] Letter Ballot #1 Voting Reminder
>
>75%, yes. And I am sure Brian will correct me if
>I am wrong, but I cannot remember an 802.16
>Working Group Letter Ballot or Sponsor Ballot
>that was forwarded to the next step in the
>approval process with less than 96% approval. In
>fact, it was/is very common for 802.16 to
>recirculate documents several times even when
>approval numbers are in the 90% range already.
>16f re-circulated (in WG letter ballot) three
>times after it already had a 93% approval rating.
>
>The 802 EC and the IEEE-SA love to see these
>kind of approval numbers, especially with large
>volumes of resolved comments. It demonstrates
>that the relevant Working Group has given due
>time and careful consideration in the
>preparation of their standard, and gives great
>comfort to approving parties (IEEE 802 EC,
>Revcom, IEEE-SA Board) that an open and
>inclusive process has achieved a broad consensus
>document with substantial and diverse
>participation.
>
>Thanks,
>Phillip Barber
>Chief Scientist
>Broadband Wireless Solutions
>Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
>----- Original Message -----
>
>From: <mailto:pfeder@LUCENT.COM>Peretz Feder
>To: <mailto:vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM>Gupta, Vivek G
>Cc: <mailto:STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 4:49 PM
>Subject: Re: [802.21] Letter Ballot #1 Voting Reminder
>
>Vivek:
>
>As far as I remember, 802.16 approvals in the
>letter ballot stage required 75% approval.
>
>Peretz Feder
>
>On 4/24/2006 3:13 PM, Gupta, Vivek G wrote:
>
>Srini,
>The P&P rules specify 50% and that's what we
>have adopted. 802.16 also specifies 50%.
>We had a lengthy discussion on this in a telecon several weeks back.
>Please check the minutes of the telecon as well.
>However in practice, to progress to the Sponsor
>ballot stage we would need to be in the > 90%
>category.
>Best Regards
>-Vivek
>
>From:
><mailto:Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com>Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com
>[<mailto:Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com>mailto:Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:07 PM
>To: Gupta, Vivek G;
><mailto:STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: RE: [802.21] Letter Ballot #1 Voting Reminder
>Is the approval rating only 50%? This looks
>quite low considering this is a standards
>specification...
>Regards,
>Srini
> 4.1.2 75% approval rate
>[Vivek G Gupta] should actually be 50%
>