| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
G'day Vivek To be clear, I am not advocating any particular closing date. I am simply advocating that the members of the SB pool (who include people form outside the 802.21 WG and its e-mail reflector) be given a "reasonable" period to properly evaluate all of a complex 345 page draft that failed its initial SB. Either 4 or 7 "effective" days is unreasonable. That said, I believe that a good compromise would be a ballot that started on 2 Jan 08 and ran for 30 days. You note that the "intent is to make the Jan meeting useful and let the WG resolve comments.". However, such an intent is potentially misguided because it runs counter to the overall goal of developing a "good" standard by making full and proper review more difficult. We should look for a way to make the Jan meeting useful, but not at the cost of making the SB "useless". You also note that you have been told, "it is inappropriate to try and resolve comments while the ballot is still open". I believe the advice was that it is inappropriate to send contradictory resolutions to RevCom and that contradictory resolutions are more likely if one starts comment resolution early. This means the WG could start resolving comments as long as they were willing to also check the resolutions for consistency at a later date. This is something that happens during every ballot resolution anyway. I am sure the WG members can generate enough comments to resolve during the Jan meeting regardless of the closing date of the ballot, thus making the Jan meeting useful. If they can't then one can only assume the draft is in very good shape and almost ready to send to RevCom. In this case, a couple of weeks of extra review should do not harm.. Andrew From: Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, 2 January 2008 2:16 PM To: Andrew Myles (amyles); IEEE 802.21 Subject: RE: 802.21 SB Recirculation Dear
All, We have had extensive
offline discussions on this topic with Andrew. I am sympathetic to his
cause. However, we posted the
updated draft D8.0 on Dec-15 (as soon as the Editor had it
ready). We started the ballot
re-circulation on Dec-20, since it took us a few days to extract comment
resolutions from Commentary file and update the spreadsheet on IEEE-SA
website. The ballot now ends on
Jan-9, just a few days before Jan interim meeting. This gives 20 days for
SB re-circulation and 25 days from the day when updated draft was posted. This
is the best we could have done, given when the updated draft was
ready. We checked with Bob
Grow (Chair 802.3) and others, and it is not uncommon to hold ballots during
this time of the year. IEEE-SA website
requires only 10 days for SB re-circulation though many believe this should be
at least 15 days. We are still going with
20 days for re-circulation and 25 days since the draft has been
available. Since the ballot did
not meet 75% Approval rating, the entire draft is in scope of re-circulation.
The draft has been updated based on comments and resolutions developed by
WG. However in spite of the
updates, significant parts of the draft remain the same and hence it should take
significantly less time to review just the changes in draft as opposed to
reviewing the entire
draft as part of original ballot. Andrew has been
advocating that we should start the ballot on Jan-7 and close 30 days later.
This would clearly render the Jan interim meeting relatively
meaningless. From my limited
experience of past ballots (and Andrew agrees), 80% or more comments are
submitted only in last few days of ballot (irrespective of length of
ballot). Also, I have been told
that it is inappropriate to try and resolve comments while the ballot is still
open. According to Bob
Grow, such a project was submitted to RevCom recently,with contradictory comment
rebuttals and it seems that RevCom required an additional recirculation because
of it. The intent is to
make the Jan meeting useful and let the WG resolve comments.
If there is
anything else that we can do, while helping the WG meet the above goal, please
do let us know. Kind
Regards -Vivek From: Andrew
Myles (amyles) [mailto:amyles@cisco.com] G'day 802.21 SB pool
members, The recirculation SB on
D8.0 started on 20 Dec 07 and was originally scheduled to complete on 6 Jan 08.
Assuming most people took the time off between Christmas and New Year, this gave
voters at most 4 business days to review a document that is 343 pages long,
which is clearly unreasonable. I protested to the
Chair of 802.21 and suggested that a full and proper review required
significantly more time, particularly as the entire document (all 343
pages) is open for review. I suggested that this recirculation SB should be
scheduled to take at least the same length of time as an initial SB (30
days) because it is effectively equivalent in scope to an initial
SB. I was told that the
rules only require a 15 days for recirculation SBs regardless of whether the
initial SB ballot failed, the scope of the necessary review, or
the number of holidays in that time. I was also told that a longer ballot
was impractical because it would not allow comments to be resolved at the
It is certainly within
the letter of the rules to hold a 15 day recirculation SB. However, I assert it
is not within the spirit of the rules. The aim of the SB process is to
encourage full and proper review by a larger group than the WG members. A 15 day
ballot over the Christmas/New Year break fails to achieve this goal by providing
insufficient time for review, effectively disenfranchising many members of the
Sponsor Pool. It would be convenient
to resolve comments in The closing date of the
recirculation SB on D8.0 has now been extended to 9 Jan 08. This provides an
additional three days of review. However, I believe the effective review period
of 7 business days is still woefully inadequate for all the reasons articulated
above. I would be interested
in the views of 802.21 SB pool members on this issue, particularly those members
who are not voting members of the 802.21 WG. It would be useful for the purpose
of closing the discussion quickly to focus on the question of
whether the recirculation SB on D8.0 be extended to at least 30
days? Andrew
Myles From:
The closing date for
this SB re-circulation has been extended to 9-Jan-2008 11.59 PM
ET. Kind
Regards -Vivek From:
Dear 802.21
Members, The 802.21 SB
re-circulation has been initiated with a start date of 20-Dec 2007 and an end
date of 6-Jan-2008. Please update your
votes and send in any comments that you may have. We have a conference
call on 8-Jan-2008 to talk about comment resolution and next steps for Jan
meeting in I would also like to
take this opportunity to wish you all Happy Holidays and thank you all for your
participation and contributions in IEEE 802.21. Kind
Regards -Vivek Vivek
Gupta Chair, IEEE
802.21 Intel
Corporation Ph: 408 765 7766
(desk)
503 473 2456 (cell) Sent: Saturday,
December 15, 2007 7:18 PM An updated version of draft
P802-21-D08-00 http://www.ieee802.org/21/private/Draft%20D08.00/P802-21-D8-0.pdf and an updated Commentary file 21-07-0340-07_SB_Comments
http://www.ieee802.org/21/private/Draft%20D08.00/21-07-0340-07_SB_Comments.USR have been posted in the private area of the 802.21 web
site. The draft has been updated based on comments that have
been resolved, as part of Sponsor Ballot as per the above Commentary
file. The updated draft will be placed in IEEE-SA area and SB
re-circulation would be initiated shortly. Best Regards -Vivek |