Re: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Email Ballot +++ EC motion for 15.4q conditional approval
Pat-
The one thing that you have not made clear is that the IEEE-SA voting is by ballot, not by comment.
Therefore, if you vote APPROVE any time after you have voted DISAPPROVE you have voted APPROVE on each of your earlier comments from all rounds of voting.
(The SA does have a linkage between comments and ballots but it is not dealt with completely.)
Also, IF you were to give forth some documentation of your satisfaction on a particular comment, then that comment would be satisfied unless it were explicitly stated otherwise in a subsequent ballot.
Thus, I would disagree with you on your statement below.
An APPROVE on recirculation DOES cancel earlier comments.
In fact, per SA rules, it is the normal way that a balloter is supposed to indicate that the balloter is satisfied with the response.
You and I both know the SA rules, but it is easy for a newer 802 balloter to be confused because 802 procedures concentrate more on comments than on the overall vote.
Regards,
Geoff
> On Jun 12, 2015, at 1:31 PMPDT, Pat (Patricia) Thaler <pthaler@BROADCOM.COM> wrote:
>
> Regarding:
> "I have been meaning to get a
> ruling from ProCom on a disapprove voter that submits comments in
> multiple ballots, but it is not at the top of my list. (Are all of the
> comments still valid? Or do the new ones take precedence?)."
>
> All comments are still valid unless you accepted the resolution. For Sponsor ballot, I'd want to have that resolution in an email (or writing).
> I don't think they have provided a way to go back to some of your previous comments to flip their status.
>
> A voter might want to submit additional comments on a recirculation because of objections to changes or to "pile on" to comments made by another disapprove voter, or to refute a response to one of their comments. That doesn't mean that their original disapprove comments are satisfied.
>
> Nothing in the rules says that a recirculation, commented on or not, cancels earlier comments - it would need to be an explicit rule to do so because without that voters would have no way of knowing that they had to resubmit old comments to keep them alive. I'd be against such a rule change. I don't want to have to deal with repeats of comments already addressed on recirculation unless there is new information.
>
> Regards,
> Pat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:41 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Email Ballot +++ EC motion for 15.4q conditional approval
>
> Bob
>
> As it is conditional approval, can you provide a link to the package?
>
> Also, on the call, it seemed like the set of unsatisfied comments
> provided by the TG only included those that were rejected. A comment is
> unsatisfied, even if accepted or revised, unless the voter says it is
> satisfied.
>
> To simplify the TGs work, only my last set of comments are unsatisfied,
> the ones in the prior ballots are fine. I have been meaning to get a
> ruling from ProCom on a disapprove voter that submits comments in
> multiple ballots, but it is not at the top of my list. (Are all of the
> comments still valid? Or do the new ones take precedence?).
>
> Also, did the ballot resolution committee update the ballot resolutions
> for any of the comments?
>
> Multiple (at least 18) rejected comment was given the reason "Rejected,
> Editorial comment will be deferred to sponsor ballot and please
> re-submit at sponsor ballot."
>
> I am pretty sure that is not a correct rejection reason as the ballot
> group cannot defer a comment to Sponsor ballot. A voter may choose to
> withdraw the comment (this seems to be acceptable to RevCom, yet there
> is nothing in the rules regarding this), but the TG cannot defer it.
>
> I think the BRC is scheduled to meet soon, they could update the
> resolutions to conform to RevCom criteria (our WG ballots, by the IEEE
> 802 P&P, adopt the Sponsor ballot rules).
>
> Finally, the summary of unsatisfied comments, in addition to not having
> all the comments from the unresolved no voters, doesn't have line
> number, clause numbers or page numbers, so it is hard to reconcile with
> the draft.
>
> Thanks
>
> James Gilb
>
> On 06/11/2015 03:49 PM, Bob Heile wrote:
>> All-
>>
>> I consulted with Paul after the EC Telecon last week and he suggested I
>> do two things, one being to cancel and reform the sponsor ballot pool
>> for 15.4q, which seemed to be the principal objection, and after that
>> was underway, to conduct an EC email ballot re-seeking the conditional
>> approval, which he authorized me to conduct when ready. Based on the
>> call discussion, I had already decided the pool needed to be reformed.
>> That is in process. The original ballot pool has been terminated and a
>> new invitation started. The invitation is scheduled to close on June 20
>> 23:59 et. A notification email was sent to the old pool indicating that
>> if they still had interest they would need to sign up again and to not
>> ignore the invitation. I am hoping that will help avoid any surprises.
>>
>> Assuming the current in process recirculation within the WG is
>> successful, the Task Group could pick up a full month in its schedule.
>> While this does not seem to save that much time, it could over time and
>> it is an important milestone. I am expecting a lively sponsor ballot so
>> the sooner we get started the better. Your support would be much
>> appreciated.
>>
>> To wit:
>>
>> 802.15 moves that the EC grant conditional approval to submit 802.15.4q
>> draft D5.0 to Sponsor Ballot.
>>
>> moved by Bob Heile
>> seconded by Clint Chaplin
>>
>> Start of ballot: 2015-06-11
>>
>> Close of ballot: 2015-06-21, 23:59 UTC-12
>>
>> Early close: As required in subclause 4.1.2 'Voting rules' of the IEEE
>> 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Operations Manual, this is notice
>> that, to ensure the release is provided in a timely manner, this ballot
>> may close early once sufficient responses are received to clearly decide
>> a matter.
>>
>> Sufficient responses to clearly decide this matter will be based on the
>> required majority for a motion under subclause 7.1.1 'Actions requiring
>> approval by a majority vote' item (h), 'Other motions brought to the
>> floor by members (when deemed in order by the Sponsor Chair)' of the
>> IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Policies and Procedures.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Heile, Ph.D
>>
>> Director of Standards, Wi-SUN Alliance
>> Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Specialty Networks
>> Chair IEEE 2030.5 Working Group for Smart Energy Profile 2
>> Co-Chair IEEE P2030 Task Force 3 on Smartgrid Communications
>>
>> 11 Robert Toner Blvd, Suite 5-301
>> North Attleboro, MA 02763 USA
>> Mobile: +1-781-929-4832
>> email: bheile@ieee.org
>>
>> ----------
>> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>> This list is maintained by Listserv.
>>
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.