Re: [802SEC] myBallot issues feedback
Chris-
I want to weigh-in with Pat's position on this.
One of my chief gripes with the packages that I occasionally received
when I was on REVCOM was that some Sponsors followed the letter of the
law but not the spirit of the law by always recirculating all comments.
This places the burden on the volunteer reviewer of sifting out the
issues. I feel that this is (a) an unfair burden and (b) poor standards
practice because it discourages thorough review of recirculation
packages. In engineering terms, it destroys the signal-to-noise ratio of
the recirculation package.
In the state of current technology, where postage costs are no longer a
consideration, I strongly feel that MyBallot should, upon recirculation,
systematically provide two versions or views of the comments on the
previous draft they should be:
- 1) The unresolved comments noted as "Required" elements of
a disapprove ballot.
- 2) All comments against the previous draft.
A comment need not be included in category 1) if
"Required" elements of a disapprove ballot have been resolved
to the satisfaction of the balloter, as determined during the balloter's
participation in the comment resolution process AND the balloter is
willing to sign off on the comment without seeing the new recirculation.
My experience is that balloters will go both ways on this issue. Simple
items will get signed off. Some comments may have been put in expressly
to get the exposure to the balloting group that a recirculation provides,
even if an appropriate resolution has been proposed.
While version/view 1) is part of the baseline content for a recirculation
package, version 2) should be visible to voters. Also, REVCOM needs
access to version 2) to be able to audit that "all comments have
been considered".
I hope this helps.
Best regards,
Geoff
At 04:03 PM 4/1/2005 -0700, Pat Thaler wrote:
Christina,
A critcal issue is ensuring that we meet the intent of recirculating the
issues where a voter is not satisfied. On many of our ballots, the vast
majority of comments originally submitted as must be satisfied are
resolved to the satisfaction of the voter. For example on one major
project there were over 100 technical comments during sponsor ballot that
the voters indicated were technical required. The voter was not satisfied
by the comment resolution on fewer than 10 of these comments.
It would have been a disservice to the dissatisfied voters to bury their
10 comments in more than 100 comments in the recirculation. Now that we
have moved to MyBallot, it is important to allow the voters to see the
unresolved issues on recirculation without having to page through
comments reading responses to find the those where the voter wasn't
satisfied.
From my experience on RevCom, their job will also be made harder if they
cannot easily see the comments where the voters remain
dissatisfied.
That is why there needs to be a field value (either a new field or a new
value for an existing field) to mark satisfied comments.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On
Behalf Of Grow, Bob
Sent: Thursday, 31 March, 2005 4:44 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] myBallot issues feedback
Christina:
On issue two, the issue isn't the ability to flip Must be Satisfied
after ballot, this was only one possible way of providing the
needed
feature. The objective is to eliminate the unnecessary content from
the
recirculation and submittal packages. What David and I originally
asked
for was a separate flag that indicates satisfaction with the response
to
the comment/proposed remedy. (802.16 has been doing this with
additional response codes while we use the separate variable.)
The ability to filter out satisfied comments would significantly
improve
the signal to noise ratio both for users in Recirculation and at
RevCom
review. Commenters may be satisfied with the resonse for most
resolutions (accept, principle, and even reject when they accept
they
were wrong).
--Bob Grow
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]
On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:17 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] myBallot issues feedback
Dear EC members,
Please see the below message from Christina Sahr regarding the
myBallot
issues that were brought up during the IEEE 802 Task Force meeting
at
the
March plenary session. If you have any further questions or
issues,
please
forward them to Christina.
Regards,
--Paul Nikolich
----- Original Message -----
From: <c.sahr@ieee.org>
To: <paul.nikolich@att.net>
Cc: <a.ickowicz@ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 12:47 PM
Subject: 802 Task Force Meeting 3/16
> Paul
>
> Thank you for including me on the myBallot discussion during the
Task
> Force
> Meeting on March 16th. I am now back in the office and have
prepared
my
> notes (issues and responses) below. Please advise if I missed
any
thing
> or
> if further clarification is needed. Please distribute to those
who
were at
> the meeting that need to have this information.
>
> Issue 1) Special Characters in the comment file upload.
> Resolution: We are going to provide the user with a better
error
message
> when the file does not load properly. We will adjust the help pages
to
> clearly reflect what is and is not accepted. we will also
offer (in
the
> help pages) alternative solutions for uploading comments that
have
> "special
> characters".
> The reason special characters cannot be used in the comment is
because
> only
> comments containing standard ANSI-ASCII characters may
> be uploaded. This does *not* include formatting (bold, fonts,
italic,
> etc); special characters (symbols, non-ANSI-ASCII characters,
> non-English font sets, smart quotes, etc); nor special constructs
such
as
> tables, math formulas (other than those that can be represented
with
> standard ANSI-CHARACTERS) or graphics. If a voter's
comments require
any
> of these, they should be placed in a Word document and then the
word
> document referred to in the comment. Multiple comments
may be placed
in
> single word document and referred to as individual comments in
the
> upload.
> All of this will be clearly identified in the help pages.
>
> Issue 2) User should be able to remove their Must Be Satisfied
from
their
> comment after ballot has closed.
> Resolution: When the ballot has closed, myBallot will lock out
all
changes
> except to comment resolution until the next cycle (or forever if
there
> is no next cycle). Exceptions such as this (or vote changes)
can be
> documented in the comment field by the sponsor, e.g. "Since the
close
of
> ballot, the voter has indicated that he wants to remove his MSB
and
this
> comment is considered cleared to the satisfaction of the
user."
>
> The POLICY is that comments, MSBs and votes can *only* be entered
into
the
> system during the official 'open' periods of initial ballot or
> recirculation. Staff will pursue further policy issues with ANSI
and
> possibly consider "vote flipping" for future
enhancements.
>
> Issue 3) Approval of Balance of the Ballot Group is no longer
"required"
> by
> the Sponsor Chair.
> Resolution: myBallot does not need a written authorization of
the
approval
> of balance since the system checks it automatically. However,
the
> sponsor chair can look at the ballot group and provide the WG
Chair
the
> verbal approval to move to the next step (open the ballot).
>
> Issue 4) David Law cannot open a ballot
> Resolution: I believe this is fixed, I have asked David to go
into
the
> system and verify.
>
> Issue 5) Days of an invitation is not a full 24 hour day.
Example:
If
> Sponsor opens the invitation on Jan 1 at 12 noon and Staff
> approves the invitation on Jan 2 at 12 noon; the invitation starts
at
12
> noon on Jan 2 and remains open for the number of days designated
by
the
> sponsor/designee (usually 30 days). However the counting of
days
begins
> at
> 12 noon on Jan 2 which is really only a half day.
> Resolution: Since Staff approval is needed to start the
invitation,
and
> approval only can occur during business hours, there will always be
a
few
> hours lag
> in time. Staff or Ballot Designee should add one extra day on
to the
> invitation days. Example: If the invitation is to be open for
30 days
the
> request should
> really be for 31 days.
> In addition, we will modify the help pages to clearly say that
the
ballot
> or invitation will run from the day of approval to 11:59pm on
the
> requested
> close date.
>
> Issue 6) Ability to edit comments by the submitter once
submitted.
The
> user should be able to delete or at least edit a comment once it
has
been
> accepted into the myBallot system.
> Resolution: This has been covered before. Once entered,
comments are
> there
> for the duration and can be edited or deleted only by entering a
new
> comment
> stating such. We *do* allow changing the MBS state and vote as
often
as
> desired *while* the original ballot or a recirc is in
progress.
>
>
----------
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.