Could you offer clarification of the
comment resolution process notes that you provide below? It appears
that I may be misinterpreting your statement of operating procedure, because
it appears to state that there are two 75% votes required for each change
to the document. To paraphrase your words, first a comment must get
75% approval to be accepted, then another 75% approval for specific action
to the draft. My confusion stems from an apparent conflict with all
my past experience wherein comments required only one vote for a change
to take effect. The comment proposes a specific remedy, which may
be agreed as stated, or modified and agreed, or rejected by the group with
75% vote. Regarding the second option, it is typical to "accept
a comment in principal" when the resolution is agreed in the spirit
of the original proposed resolution, but restated or adjusted to better
reflect the wisdom of the group. In either case, there is but one
vote. Are you saying the same thing, or something different?
Regards,
Paul Kolesar
SYSTIMAX® SOLUTIONS
1300 East Lookout Drive
Richardson, TX 75082
Phone: 972.792.3155
Fax: 972.792.3111
eMail: pkolesar@systimax.com
David Cunningham <david_cunningham@AGILENT.COM> Sent by: owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@IEEE.ORG
05/12/2005 03:05 PM
Please respond to
"IEEE P802.3aq 10GBASE-LRM" <stds-802-3-10gmmf@IEEE.ORG>
To
STDS-802-3-10GMMF@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
cc
Subject
[10GMMF] Update on May05 TF meeting
Dear 10GBASE-LRM,
Sadly I can't attend the May comment review meeting. I am pleased
to announce that Jim McVey has kindly agreed to chair the meeting. Please
give him your full support at the meeting. There are a lot of comments
to resolve and it will take both the May and the June meeting to resolve
them, more on this later.
The likely format of the meeting is as follows:
Day 1
Chairs opening remarks
Editors report
Ad Hoc reports
Presentations (see the 10GBASE-LRM website)
Comment review
- Decide order of comment review
Comment review
Day 2
Comment review
Day3
Comment review and brief closing session
Adjourn comment review until June meeting
Comment resolution of D2.0 will take two interim meetings, May and June.
Therefore, plan to be at the June meeting. Some comments on D2.0 require
further study these will be assigned to ad hoc(s) for study between the
May and June interim meetings. Then they will be resolved at the June meeting.
The first recirculation of D2.1 will now occur out of the June meeting.
SOME POINTS CONCERNING COMMENT REVIEW IN WG BALLOT
Unlike taskforce review, comments can't be pushed from one ballot to the
next. Comments propose changes to the document. To change the
document the taskforce must accept the comment by a 75% vote and then a
remedy must be accepted by a 75% vote. If a comment is not accepted
with a 75% vote it has been rejected. All comments must be considered and
a response written for them with agreed (by a 75% vote) changes implemented
in the draft before a recirculation ballot can occur.
All responses should be respectful and provide thoughtful justification
for the response especially if other than accept. Response generation can
be delegated to subgroups or even individuals, but the customary practice
is to only do this delegation by a motion of the group, typically at the
end when time is running out. The comment database is the master minutes
for comment resolution. Therefore, there is no need for minutes on
comment resolution.
I hope you all have a very successful meeting in Austin and I look forward
to seeing you at the London interim.