stds-802-16-tg2: Letter Ballot #2 results

["Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>]

Phil,

Congratulations on the success of Letter Ballot #2!

Let's talk about where to go next. First, the schedule, starting with 
IEEE, who will oversee the Sponsor Ballot. I expect it to look like 
this:

29 December Marks sends IEEE a letter of Invitation to Ballot Group
29 December Marks issues a final invitation to join ballot pool
  8 January  IEEE invites ballot pool members to join Ballot Group
17 February Deadline to accept Ballot Group invitation (40 days)
19 February Sponsor Ballot ready to begin

In parallel, we ought to try and get a draft approved by the 802 SEC 
in time to be ready when IEEE is. Our schedule is thus:

  9 January  Recirculation begins (possible)
19 January  Recirculation ends (possible)
22 January  Session #11 begins
26 January  Session #11 ends
29 January  Final recirculation begins
  8 February Final recirculation ends
  9 February IEEE 802 SEC email vote (on going to Sponsor Ballot) begins
19 February IEEE 802 SEC email vote ends

If we are to make good use of Session #11, we are (obviously) going 
to modify the draft there. Therefore, we have to follow Session #11 
with a recirculation ballot before we go to the SEC. That fits the 
IEEE schedule well.

The main question now is whether or not to run an additional recirc 
before Session #11. This would provide yet one more pass at getting 
the bugs out; I am sure there are still quite a few. It would also 
increase the likelihood of a clean result (i.e., no outstanding 
negatives) following Session #11. On the other hand, it isn't 
absolutely necessary, and the recirc after Session #11 would 
_probably_ turn out OK. Also, you guys would be busy until Jan. 9 
getting the next draft ready.

By the way, in a recirculation ballot, votes will stand unless 
changed; in other words, those who voted yes the first time do not 
need to vote again if they are still happy.

So, to recirc or not to recirc? As Chair, you ought to make the 
decision. My suggestion is to do it if you can. If you decide not to, 
then I think you ought to make sure your people put an extra effort 
into scouring the document for editorial issues and inconsistencies. 
In this regard, they will be doing some of the work that, in a 
recirc, you would pawn off on the rest of the Working Group. (I have 
to say that the record shows that the TG2 regulars were not 
especially diligent in reviewing the draft during the just-completed 
ballot stage.)

Let me know what you want to do. In any case, Happy New Year!

Roger


>IEEE 802.16's Letter Ballot #2 has closed. In summary, the results were:
>
>Approve         69
>Disapprove       4
>Abstain         10
>Approval Ratio: 94.5%
>Return Ratio:   61.9%
>Comments:       147
>
>The motion carried, pending comment resolution and recirculation.
>
>For the full report, including the comment report in both PDF and 
>spreadsheet form, see:
>
>	http://ieee802.org/16/tg2/ballots/ballot02
>
>Congratulations to TG2! I will be working with them on the comment 
>resolution and recirculation process.
>
>Happy New Year!
>
>Roger