| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear EC / 802.11 CAC The IEEE-SA RevCom in 2015 updated its set of comment resolution guidelines, which document “best known practices” for comment resolution, as RevCom sees it. If you are not familiar, or more specifically your chairs managing comment resolution committees are not familiar with them, I recommend reading them. They are attached for your edification and delight. RevCom recently adding the following section to these guidelines:
RevCom guidance on the contents of the disposition and disposition detail fields
The disposition status field of a comment resolution must be set to one of: Accepted, Revised or Rejected. This section gives guidance on how to determine which is the appropriate disposition status, and based on that, what might go in the disposition detail
field. In these guidelines, the term comment resolution committee (CRC) is used to refer to the group or subgroup that reviewed the ballot comments on behalf of the Sponsor, and entered the comment resolutions (disposition status and disposition detail) in
the MyProject system. The CRC may be termed a ballot resolution committee (BRC) or may be the Working Group as a whole, depending on the procedures of the individual Sponsor.
Disposition status is “Accepted”
-
Means: The CRC agreed exactly with comment and change proposed by the commenter.
-
Prerequisite: The changes proposed in the comment contain sufficient detail so that voters can understand the specific changes that satisfy the commenter and the editor can make the change.
-
The disposition detail field should be left blank.
Disposition status is “Revised”
-
Means: CRC agrees in principle with the comment and/or proposed change, and one or more of:
o
the CRC disagrees with all or part of the specific details in the proposed change in the comment,
o
the proposed change in the comment does not contain sufficient detail so that the CRC can understand the specific changes that satisfy the commenter, or
o
the changes made by the CRC contain additions or modifications
1 to what was proposed by the commenter
-
The disposition details field should contain sufficient detail so that voters can understand the specific changes determined by the CRC and the editor can make the change
Disposition status is “Rejected”
-
Used when one or more of these applies:
o
the CRC disagree with the comment
o
the comment is out of scope
o
the proposed change in the comment does not contain sufficient detail so that the CRC can understand the specific changes that satisfy the commenter
o
the CRC cannot come to a consensus to make changes necessary to address the comment
o
the comment is in support of an unsatisfied previous comment associated with a disapprove vote and does not provide substantive additional rationale
-
The disposition detail field should explain why the comment is being rejected using one or more of these reasons:
o
an explanation of why the CRC disagrees with the comment,
o
a statement that the comment is out of scope, and the rationale,
o
a statement that the proposed change in the comment does not contain sufficient detail so that the CRC can understand the specific changes that satisfy the commenter
o
a statement that the CRC could not reach consensus on the changes necessary to address the comment, along with the reason
o
a statement that the CRC has previously considered the comment (or a substantively similar comment), along with identification (by reference or copy) of the original comment and its disposition detail and status Best Regards, Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office) ---------------------------------------------- |
Attachment:
RevCom guidelines.pdf
Description: RevCom guidelines.pdf