Re: [802SEC] UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding 802.20 to RevComm
Phil,
With all due respect, I would encourage you to look at what the Recirc2-Balloting-Result.pdf file actually states. First please be aware that this is a worksheet for the final summary report and auditing by the OC. In the usual summaries these blocs are reported with the "Do Not Approve without comment" designation.
If you look at the Individual Vote column for the ballots with out of scope comments, I believe you will clearly see that there is a "1" in the "Disapprove" column for the individuals, the comment column then indicates that the comments were considered out of scope. In the Bloc vote column this is captured by having a zero entry in the disapprove column, i.e. a disapprove with "zero" weight. Frankly I cannot see why you are reading the Individual Vote column any other way.
Comment resolution is done by the working group as a whole and was scheduled at the last plenary to be done at the wireless interim. In the interest of openness comment resolution is done by the working group as a whole.
Best regards,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Barber [mailto:pbarber@huawei.com]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 2:05 AM
To: Klerer, Mark; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding 802.20 to RevComm
Mark,
With due respect, that is not what the report document
'Recirc2-Balloting-Result.pdf' shows. That report document shows individual
votes as being 'Abstain' instead of 'Disapprove'. 'Disapprove, without
comments' is missing entirely from the report.
And I would respectfully comment that you should have contacted the affected
parties before publicizing changed results, without their consultation or
consent. Those parties may have had compelling arguments that might have
caused you to change your decision, prior to the publication of the results
and the initiation of this ballot. But you will never know because you did
not contact them until after publication and initiation, when it is too
late.
Also, could you please elaborate on what comment resolution process starts
on Monday? Are you talking about the BRC comment resolution process for
Recirc2?
Thanks,
Phillip Barber
-----Original Message-----
From: Klerer, Mark [mailto:mklerer@qualcomm.com]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 12:49 AM
To: Phillip Barber; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding 802.20 to
RevComm
Phil,
The balloters deemed to have a "Disapprove without comment" will be
contacted as part of the comment resolution process starting Monday and
given an opportunity to change their vote.
For the purpose of this motion and bloc computation they were counted as
"Disapprove without comment" the status of the bloc is then determined by
the rules that have been previously applied.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Phillip Barber
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 12:30 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: FW: [802SEC] UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding 802.20 to
RevComm
Dear EC,
This is a very troubling ballot result for the 802.20 Sponsor Ballot.
I note in my review of the provided supporting documentation that the 802.20
Chair has disallowed 'Disapprove' votes in the ballot, changing the votes to
'Abstain' or 'Approve' (for the bloc), indicating that the votes were not
associated with valid comments.
I do not find that changing a vote to 'Abstain' is allowed under the IEEE-SA
OM. I only find that changing the vote to Disapprove 'unresolved negative
without comment' is allowed.
Further, enough of these conversions from 'Disapprove' were made such that
the ballot achieved the necessary 75% approval result. To be clear, if one
or more of those 'Disapprove' conversions were incorrectly conducted, the
Recirculation ballot would fall below 75%. So these conversions of
'Disapprove' votes deserve substantial scrutiny, and should be treated with
substantial skepticism. This ballot, with its history of controversy should
be doing everything possible to conduct activity with complete inclusiveness
and transparency. Disallowing comments entirely and changing votes is the
most egregious of actions. The ballot should not use such suspect tactics.
On examination, such scrutiny and skepticism seems well founded in this
instance.
Several of these comments, including one by Max Reigel, seem inappropriately
disallowed. Specifically, Max's comment states:
Not clear why the specification states:
"The 625k-MC system enables end-to-end IP-over-PPP (Point-to-Point Protocol)
connectivity between the service providers and their customers who are the
end users." when 802.3/802.2 encapsulation is provided allowing also
IP-over-Ethernet.
with proposed remedy:
Remove sentence in line 1-2 on page 42.
The 802.20 BRC response was:
Comment out of scope of the recirculation - this text has not been changed.
While I do not disagree that text in that section may not have changed
during the most recent recirculation, I can say that at least outstanding
disapprove comments by Tony Jeffree are also directed to this same general
matter. So Max's comment is open and relevant to outstanding disapprove
comments. Disallowing this comment, and especially converting Max's vote to
'Abstain' from 'Disapprove' is improper and irregular.
I know that some will contend that Max's vote was related to 'previously
approved portions of the balloted document', and should therefore be deemed
invalid. But we have the IEEE-SA OM to define for us the three conditions
under which a balloter may cast a 'Disapprove' vote during recirculation.
The OM states:
'A change to "do not approve," which is submitted with comments, shall be
based only on the changed portions of the balloted document, clauses
affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted document that are the
subject of the unresolved negative votes.'
The 802.20 Chair has only evaluated the negative comment associated with a
'Disapprove' vote based on the first of the three, independent reasons for
making such valid comment. Note that the 802.20 Chair is depending on the
subsequent line in the OM which states:
'If a change to "do not approve" is based solely on comments concerning
previously approved portions of the balloted document, the balloter shall be
informed that the comments are not based on the changed portion of the
balloted document [emphasis added].'
This is a conditional evaluation, and is only related to the first condition
for submitting a negative comment 'based only on the changed portions of the
balloted document'.
However, Max's comment is based on the third valid criteria for making a
negative comment: 'portions of the balloted document that are the subject of
the unresolved negative votes', at least Tony Jeffree's outstanding
disapprove comments.
'Previously approved portions of the balloted document' by definition do not
include other 'clauses affected by the changes [in previous resolution of
comments]', or 'portions of the balloted document that are the subject of
the unresolved negative votes'. Of course they cannot, else others would not
be allowed to add their voice of dissent during recirculation when one
person found an egregious error in the draft, but one that was initially
rejected by the BRC, or when changes in one part of the draft caused
contradictions and conflict in other parts of the draft, other parts that
themselves were otherwise unchanged.
Also, comments from Todor Cooklov of Hitachi and Subburajan Ponnuswamy of
Aruba Networks are relevant to outstanding negative comments from at least
Roger Marks and Jon Labs on the topic of perceived inappropriate Scope
definition variance from the PAR, in the draft.
While I can see a decision not to recirculate the draft based on some of
these comments when they are restating a previously identified problem in
the ballot, the Chair of 802.20 has inappropriately disallowed these
comments and most inappropriately changed the balloters vote from
'Disapprove'.
I am also disillusioned to learn that the 802.20 Chair has not contacted the
affected ballot Members on this matter, as required by the IEEE-SA OM. So we
do not get the opportunity to hear their comments.
As a current Revcom Member, I urge the group to consider carefully on this
matter. I want to echo Bob's message on this matter: should this matter
appear before Revcom in its current form, I think it will have a difficult
time achieving passage. And we certainly want this project to come to
conclusion, so perhaps some positive steps can be made to improve the work
and bring it into an acceptable condition.
Also, as Bob identifies the package presented here is incomplete for Revcom
evaluation. So you are being asked to commend the work based on inadequate
information.
Thanks,
Phillip Barber
-----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, May 08, 2008 6:14 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding 802.20 to
RevComm
Colleagues:
Comments from a former RevCom member.
I can't understand a couple things in this package. I have been unable
figure out what the Marvel comments file relates to -- what ballot it
was part of, why it is separate, etc.? Last year, RevCom required an
additional recirculation of an 802.16 submittal that had comments that
were not properly recirculated to the ballot group. I can't figure out
if that is the case here, but lets please learn from that experience
this is a similar situation.
I also am less than confident on purpose and effectiveness of the
Comment Supplement file, I have no idea what its reference to the "main
sheet" is. Is that the initial ballot comment file, the recirc-1
comment file, the recirc-2 comment file, or some WG file? If this is to
be supplemental (for RevCom) to responses approved by the WG, I failed
to find any significant supplemental information.
I would suggest that getting through RevCom would be significantly
simplified if the required comment responses were not so terse. When I
sat on RevCom, and saw such comment rebuttals, I would either
withholding my intended vote or indicate the intent to vote to
disapprove the submittal, and if not satisfactorily addressed before the
RevCom meeting would vote to disapprove).
RevCom members will want to be able to follow any references to other
items (e.g., a not a new comment response goes over much better if it
includes a reference to the ballot and comment number(s) substantiating
why it is not new. Similarly, references to external documents are a
problem.
The ballot tallies I expect will be examined very closely. I would be
surprised if RevCom members do not find the tally summary incomplete and
insufficient to substantiate the implicit request to treat some
Disapprove comments as Disapprove without comment. The RevCom package
should contain for each ballot, both the special tally and the myBallot
individual tally.
The basis for treating a Disapprove as a Disapprove w/o comment is SASB
Operations Manual 5.4.3.2 text as follows:
"During a recirculation ballot, balloting group members shall have an
opportunity to change their previously cast ballots. If a change to "do
not approve" is based solely on comments concerning previously approved
portions of the balloted document, the balloter shall be informed that
the comments are not based on the changed portion of the balloted
document. Such comments need not be addressed in the current ballot and
may be considered for a future revision of the standard. If the balloter
does not change the negative ballot, the ballot may be submitted to
RevCom as an unresolved negative without comment."
And for the submittal:
"Any negative vote with comment that RevCom is to consider as a negative
without comment shall be explained to RevCom."
So, the rule can be invoked when a vote other than a Disapprove changes
to a Disapprove. The recirc-1 ballot tally is not included in the
package so one cannot determine if disapprove votes can be treated as
disapprove w/o comment. Again as a RevCom reviewer I would expect all
ballot tallies to be included in the submittal. Also, I find
explanation of the change in votes (scattered among the comment files)
failing to meet the expectations of this requirement to explain to
RevCom why votes should be treated as Disapprove w/o comment.
Much of this is simply suggestion for creating a solid and problem-free
submittal; but I expect lack of attention to the tally of votes would
present significant risk to approval during RevCom consideration.
--Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 12:29 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding 802.20 to
RevComm
802 EC
Paul Nikolich has delegated the running the following ballot to me.
Motion: UC-EC approves forwarding 802.20 draft 4.1 to RevComm
Mover: James Gilb
Second: Bob Heile
Start of ballot May 7, 2008
End of ballot May 17, 2008 AOE (anywhere on earth)
The resolution document are attached for you reference.
James Gilb
802 Recording Secretary
----------
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.