| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Ooops, Dave Ringle’s later email shows this was discussed, and I was there. I hate it when you forget these things :0). I think the point we are discussing is not explicitly covered in the proposed new rules. It states: “All public review comments received during an IEEE Public Review
shall be considered by the Sponsor and a response shall be
provided to the commenter. If the response
indicates that a change is to be made to the draft, the commenter is entitled to receive a copy of the revised
draft from the Sponsor upon request.” It does not state whether you are allowed to consider your draft complete and submit to
RevCom while there is an ongoing public review on the same document. However, given the 30 days for the original sponsor ballot, a few days to faff around writing resolutions, and the (40 day) RevCom submittal deadline, RevCom would at
least know if public review comments had been received and not responded to. Best Regards, Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office) Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA) ---------------------------------------------- From: Stephens, Adrian P
Hello Geoff, I’ve updated the minutes to capture the action item as: Soo Kim to alert appropriate body (Yvette, Dave Ringle) that this (the public review process) might cause significant issues for 802 standards publication / progressions. Geoffrey Thompson offers to review material describing this process. The current SB OM contains: 5.4.3.7 Comments received as a result of a public review If a comment is received as a result of a public review process, that comment will be addressed by the
Sponsor and a disposition returned to the commenter, along with information concerning their right of
appeal. That is the sum total of the current rules. I know that staff are working out the rules for public review, and they will be considered by the ProCom and standards board in due course. I attend ProCom meetings as an observer, and I’m on the standards board. You can be sure I’ll pay
attention to this issue. IMHO the only workable solution that is likely to satisfy ANSI is for the entire sponsor ballot
process to last at least 60 days so that there is a process to respond to comments and an opportunity for them to affect the draft. Best Regards, Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office) Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA) ---------------------------------------------- From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@ieee.org]
Adrian/Colleagues- I want to congratulate Adrian on coming up with a scary and effective way to get folks to review the minutes. I know the open references in the list below drove me to go back and see what I allegedly agreed to. Regarding #2, I don't think I offered to work on a solution, that is a ProCom/RevCom issue. I was merely pointing out that there seemed to be a significant potential for "Public Review" (with a 60 day ballot period) to lengthen the time that it takes tightly managed 802 draft projects to go through the Sponsor Ballot cycle. Whether or not this is actually the case seems to not be defined at this point because (as far as I know) there is no defined procedure in the SASB P&P for how to deal with Public Review comments that come in after close of initial Sponsor
Ballot but meet the Public Review deadline. If the deadline doesn't mean anything, as is effectively the case on comments we receive on international ballots from SC 6, then the comments can just be treated as input to our maintenance process. However, I somehow doubt that will
be the case. JTC1 comments are entirely outside the scope of RevCom review. I don't think failure to address Public Review comments can escape the RevCom review process if the SA wishes to keep its ANSI accreditation. Therefore, we need actual procedures
on what the review requirements are for a RevCom submittal package so we can assess the possible impact on the time it takes to get from opening of Sponsor Ballot to RevCom package submittal. Staff did not seem to have crisply defined material in that area. I am happy to take the action item to review such material and - Report/critique on whether it is fully defined - Report on whether it will impact our schedules - Report on whether I see any problems with the system and its P&P Clearly, this is a problem/requirement that appears to go well beyond the scope of what have been classified and handled as "rogue" comments in the past. Regards, Geoff On Jul 25, 2014, at 2:50 AMPDT, Stephens, Adrian P <Adrian.P.Stephens@INTEL.COM> wrote:
|