Re: [802SEC] Ballot Resolution Process
Good point Bob. In fact there are no "requirements" if the ballot fails,
but common sense tells us that we will really have badly blown an
opportunity if we don't continue to follow the process.
It never occurred to me that we might not take that route.
Note, that a ballot initially failing, does not mean the ballot will have
failed after resolving comments. Therefore, by proceeding with due
diligence, it may be possible to turn around an otherwise failed ballot,
based on comment resolution.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
Chair, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob O'Hara" <bob@informed-technology.com>
To: "'RDLove'" <rdlove@nc.rr.com>; "'802 SEC'" <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Cc: "'Hawkins, John'" <jhawkins@nortelnetworks.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 8:07 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Ballot Resolution Process
>
> Bob,
>
> One question that I do not see any official direction for: Is official
> comment resolution required if the ballot fails? The operating rules (and
> your description below) are clear about comment resolution when the ballot
> succeeds. But it seems that the requirements are predicated on a
successful
> ballot.
>
> -Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of RDLove
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 1:00 PM
> To: 802 SEC
> Cc: Hawkins, John
> Subject: [802SEC] Ballot Resolution Process
>
>
> I have been asked to explain the ballot resolution process / protocol to
> IEEE 802.17, and have developed the attached explanation. I would
> appreciate any feedback, positive or negative, and any suggested changes
to
> improve the documents accuracy, and readability.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Robert D. Love
> Chair, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
> President, LAN Connect Consultants
> 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
> Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
> email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
>
> Comment Resolution Protocol
> After all comments on a standard draft are submitted and compiled the
> Comment Resolution group gets first crack at addressing them. Every
voting
> member that wants to be a part of the comment resolution group may do so.
> Non-voting participants may also be allowed to be a part of the group,
based
> on the discretion of the chair. Understand that being a part of the group
> may involve traveling to an additional meeting or two, and/or
participating
> in teleconferences, in addition to time spent studying the comments.
> Comments are normally grouped for ease in reviewing them.
> The comment resolution group attempts to understand each comment and
> seriously address both the words and any underlying concern that they
> believe is behind the comments. It is still the duty of the commenter to
> recommend the replacement text, or specifically what must be done to
resolve
> the stated issue.
> If possible, the comment resolution committee should send their proposed
> comment resolutions to the original commenter (whenever they do not simply
> accept the proposed change). Sometimes schedule pressures preclude this
> possibility prior to the entire working group reviewing the proposed
> comments. The working group gets the opportunity to review the proposed
> comment resolutions and any email postings that may support or challenge
> some of the proposed resolutions. The entire working group gets to vote
to
> approve the comment resolutions on a comment by comment basis (If there is
> no objection, then no vote is taken. If there is no request to review a
> comment resolution, then it is assumed that there is no objection to it.)
> For those comments that are stated to be mandatory to change a vote from
> Disapprove to Approve, the commenter is asked to approve the working
group's
> approved comment disposition. (In some working groups, the commenter is
> asked to approve all comment resolutions.)
> Based on comment resolution, some votes may change from Disapprove to
> Approve. If after the comment resolution process is complete, at least
75%
> of voting members that cast an Approve or Disapprove vote, now vote
Approve,
> the ballot is said to have passed.
> Note that at any point, a commenter may withdraw a comment. In that case,
> it is as if that comment had never been submitted. The withdrawal of a
> comment may cause a voter to change his/her vote from Disapprove to
Approve.
> What Happens Now?
> If the draft does not garner at least 75% approval after comment
> resolution, the ballot has failed, and a new draft is prepared for ballot.
> If the draft does achieve a 75% ballot resolution, then we begin the next
> steps:
> Assuming technical changes were made to the draft during the ballot
> resolution process, and/or, if there are still unresolved negative votes,
a
> revised draft is prepared based on the approved changes to the text. That
> draft now goes out for "recirculation ballot", a period that could be as
> short as 10 days. Along with the draft, all Technical Required Comments
> that have not been addressed to the commenter's satisfaction are also
> circulated. The working group has a chance to include an explanation as
to
> why the ballot comment was not addressed to the satisfaction of the
> commenter, and include that remark with the comments circulated along with
> the draft. The commenter has the right to also state why the proposed
> resolution falls short of what is required, and have those remarks
> circulated as well.
> During the recirculation, each person that voted on the originally
balloted
> draft has a chance to change their vote based on changes made to the
> document, and based on the information obtained by reading the Required
> Technical Comments that were not addressed to the commenter's
satisfaction.
> (Note: The recirculation process does not grant voters the right to now
look
> closely, for the first time, at portions of the document that were not
> changed, but were just not reviewed well during the original ballot
period.)
> If someone that voted on the initial draft does not respond to the
> recirculation vote, then the voter's Approve, Disapprove, or Abstain on
the
> initial ballot remains unaltered.
> All comments made during a recirculation vote are handled the same way
that
> comments were treated during the initial vote on the draft. In addition,
> the voter list for recirculation remains unchanged during the entire
> recirculation process.
> If, following the recirculation ballot, there are no new Negative votes,
and
> no new comments that result in technical changes to the draft being made,
> then the Working Group ballot process is complete and the draft can
proceed
> to LMSC Sponsor level ballot.
> If there are new unresolved comments, or further technical changes made to
> the draft as a result of comment resolution, then another recirculation
must
> take place. Recirculation ballots continue until there are no new
negative
> votes, and no technical changes to the draft as a result of comments made.
> At this point the draft is ready for LMSC Sponsor level ballot. Normally
> ballots sent to LMSC Sponsor level have an approval rating at the working
> group level of at least 95%.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>