Of the options proposed, I would favor fixing the editorial problem and recirculating. Not fixing an editorial seems like arguing with the voter just to argue. However, there is a third option which I suggest is better than either: instead of rejecting the
comment as "out of scope", reject the comment and refer it to the IEEE SA Editorial staff. No recirc, goes to revcom same as if we go with "out of scope", but makes it very likely (p -> 1) that the changes suggested by the voter are made prior to publication.
Timeline preserved, and we have a slightly better product and an some chance of a satisfied voter.
From the revcom guidelines:
As guidance, editorial comments are those that could be made without specialized knowledge of the specialized content of the document, and relate to grammar, punctuation, IEEE format,
handling of Bibliographic entries, numbering of sub- clauses and figures, and the like.
So we may reject it and refer it to the IEEE editors:
There may be editorial comments that are Rejected. The comment response could be "The CRG refers this change to IEEE SA Editorial staff for consideration during preparation for publication.”
FWIW
Ben
On 10/8/2024 10:05 PM, James P. K. Gilb wrote:
All We received one MBS comment from an current disapprove voter in the last recirculation. We will discuss it on the call tomorrow (10/9/2024). A summary has been uploaded to mentor. https://mentor.ieee.org/802.1/dcn/24/1-24-0054-00-Mntg-p802-revc-sa-second-recirculation-ballot-report.odp -- James Gilb IEEE 802 LMSC Chair ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
Benjamin A. Rolfe
Blind Creek Associates
Ben@blindcreek.com
+1 408 332 0725 (Mobile)
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1