Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ Motion: 802.16a to SponsorBallot
Roger,
My primary concern is with the TBDs and your comments below do not, to
my way of thinking, address the TBD issue. You give no indication of
the number of TBDs and/or logical TBDs (a logical TBD is a TBD labelled
with a character string that is not "TBD"), no indication of the
significance of each TBD, no indication of why each TBD has not been
resolved and no indication of the plan to resolve each of the TBDs
(other than let the Sponsor Ballot group do it).
Best regards,
wlq
"Roger B. Marks" wrote:
>
> I vote Approve on this motion.
>
> While I understand Pat's concerns, I would also like to address her comments.
>
> *TBDs: Yes, there are a few TBDs in the document. This is less than
> ideal. However, there is nothing in the 802 or IEEE-SA rules on this
> issue. Obviously, we are not going to send a document to RevCom with
> TBDs. When the Working Group turns a document over to a Sponsor
> Ballot group, it willingly gives up some of its control to another
> group. The Working Group has judged that the Sponsor Ballot Group is
> capable of resolving these minor TBDs and has trusted them to do so.
> I believe they have that right.
>
> *Dismissive rebuttals: Out of the 12 Disapprove comments (and out of
> the 1178 comments resolved in the Working Group Letter Ballot), I can
> see two for which a stronger rebuttal might be called for. I wish we
> had none. However, all of these Disapprove comments were recirculated
> (all but two were recirculated twice). Once again, the analogy to a
> RevCom application is less than exact. 802.16 is not asking the SEC
> to approve a standard; it is asking the SEC to initiate a ballot.
>
> In the last Working Group recirc, we had 8 new Approves and no new
> Disapproves. We also had no comments. The Working Group has clearly
> spoken, by a vote of 99-5. I can understand the role of perfectionism
> in approving a standard. However, it shouldn't apply to holding a
> ballot.
>
> Roger
>
> P.S. Finally, should the SEC members care to consider the
> cost/benefit relationship of this decision, I'd like to mention that,
> because of our scheduling situation, the failure of this SEC motion
> would have serious scheduling implications. Even if could open the
> Sponsor Ballot before our May interim meeting, we wouldn't have it
> closed in time to resolve comments. The resulting delay would be at
> least two months; possibly four.
>
> >I've read through the disapprove comments and I have two concerns:
> >
> >1) TBD's - normally we forward to sponsor ballot a document should be
> >complete which means that it shouldn't have any TBD's. Starting sponsor
> >ballot has been equated to lighting a solid fuel booster rocket. It can be
> >hard to abort the process once one has gotten to that point. It is the final
> >review phase. If the TBDs are in an informative part of the standard such
> >that even if they are never filled in it would be okay to publish then maybe
> >it is acceptable to go to sponsor ballot with them in place. If the TBDs are
> >normative then they need to be filled in before starting sponsor ballot
> >(which implies another Working Group recirculation).
> >
> >2) Dismissive unresponsive responses to disapprove comments. A number of the
> >comment responses don't appear to seriously respond to the comment. To the
> >uninitiated reader they read like brushoffs. Look, for example, at the
> >comments concerned about the number of alternative physical layers. A
> >response to a comment such as this should include brief justification of why
> >the alternatives have been included. Similarly the responses to requests
> >that material be added to guide one in selecting between the PHY
> >alternatives. Note that the under Distinct Identity of the Five Criteria on
> >requirement is: "Easy for the document reader to select the relevant
> >specification." so it is a reasonable request that should have gotten a more
> >serious response.
> >
> >If sponsor ballot comments end up going to RevCom with similar responses
> >then there is a good chance that the submission won't get approved. Comment
> >responses to unresolved disapprove comments should be written such that they
> >justify the working group response to an outsider. That is who will be
> >reviewing them to audit that the working group did its job.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Pat
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net]
> >Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 6:06 AM
> >To: 'IEEE802'
> >Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ Motion: 802.16a to Sponsor
> >Ballot
> >
> >
> >
> >Dear SEC,
> >
> >This is an SEC email ballot on making a determination on the below SEC
> >motion to forward IEEEE P802.16a/d2 to LMSC Sponsor Ballot, moved by Roger
> >Marks, seconded by Bob Heile.
> >
> >The email ballot opens on Friday April 5 9AM EST and closes Friday April 12
> >noon EDT.
> >
> >Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >--Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:marks@boulder.nist.gov]
> >Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 7:47 PM
> >To: p.nikolich@ieee.org
> >Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org; stds-802-16@ieee.org
> >Subject: Motion: 802.16a to Sponsor Ballot
> >
> >
> >Paul,
> >
> >I would like to make the following IEEE 802 LMSC Motion:
> >"To forward IEEE P802.16a/D3 to LMSC Sponsor Ballot"
> > Motion by: Roger Marks
> > Seconded by: Robert Heile
> >
> >Full backup material, including details of all 12 Disapprove comments:
> > <http://ieee802.org/16/docs/02/80216-02_21.pdf>
> >
> >SUMMARY:
> >
> >*IEEE 802.16 Letter Ballot #4 (including Recirc #4a and Confirm #4b)
> >"To forward IEEE P802.16a for IEEE Sponsor Ballot"
> >
> >Dates: 2001-11-30 to 2002-04-04
> >Final results: Approve 99 (95%)
> > Disapprove 5
> > Abstain 18
> > Return Ratio 122/178 = 69%
> > Disapprove Comments 12
> >Final voting report: http://ieee802.org/16/tga/ballot04/report4b.html
> >Disapprove comments: http://ieee802.org/16/docs/02/80216-02_21.pdf
> >(all were recirculated)
> >
> >Results of final recirculation (Confirmation Ballot #4b):
> > New Disapproves 0
> > Comments 0
> >
> >*IEEE 802.16 Authorizing Motion
> >802.16 Session #18 Closing Plenary (15 March 2002)
> >Motion: "To authorize a confirmation ballot of P802.16a/D3 and
> >forward it for LMSC Sponsor Ballot pending successful confirmation
> >ballot."
> >Motion by: Brian Kiernan, for Task Group a
> >Seconded by: (none needed)
> >Approve: 32
> >Disapprove: 1
> >Abstain: 2
> >
> >Other documentation:
> > Confirmation Ballot #4b announcement:
> > <http://ieee802.org/16/docs/02/80216-02_20.pdf>
> > final comment Resolution database:
> > <http://ieee802.org/16/docs/02/80216-02_01r14.pdf> [PDF format]
> > <http://ieee802.org/16/docs/02/80216-02_01r14.zip> [database format]
> > draft (P802.16a/D3):
> > http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/users/tgaaccess/private/P80216a_D3.zip
> > (username and password upon request)
> >
> >I would like to urge that the ballot be concluded by noon ET on April
> >12 in order to accommodate our tight schedule situation (namely, so
> >that we can get the ballot closed before our interim meeting).
> >
> >Please let me know if I can provide any more information.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Roger