[RPRWG] Comment submission: some guidelines and hints
Title: Announcement of opening of 802.17 D0_2 Working Group Comment Period
Colleagues,
To
facilitate smooth and quick processing of the comments you are presumably making
on
the
draft under review, and to speed up the progress of the comment resolution
sessions we
will
engage in next month, here are some things you should keep in mind when making
and
submitting your comments.
1. The
most common mistake when submitting comments during the previous round was
to
send
me your "CommentaryData.USR" file as-is along with your 'ballot', rather than
following
the
process described on Page 11 of the Commentary Users Guide ("CRD
Instructions v2.pdf").
Please
don't do this! It causes much unnecessary work for me and considerably slows
down
the
process of posting your comments on the web site.
2. The
second most common mistake was to omit clause, page and line numbers from
your
comments (or to provide the wrong numbers). This is
really quite detrimental to progress. I
use
the clause and page numbers to sort the comments so that I can divide them up
into
the
various sections; these blocks of comments are then passed to the respective
section
editors for review and for resolution during the
meeting. Failure to insert the proper clause
numbers will cause me to spend a lot of time figuring
out where your comments should go,
which
not only delays the posting of comments but also frequently results in errors
and
mis-assigned comments.
3.
Please do not enter figure or table numbers into the clause number box.
This also messes
up the
sort. Instead, make a reference to the specific figure or table within the body
of your
comment. (In the CRD to be used for the next draft
version after D0.2, there will be a separate
box
for entering figure or table numbers.)
4. If
you have a comment that applies to the majority of clauses in the draft, enter
'0'
(the
number zero) in the clause number field. During my sorting process, I will be
looking for
these
so-called 'clause 00' comments and will not forward them to the section editors,
but
will
resolve them myself during the meeting as necessary.
5. If
you have a comment that applies to a small number of clauses (2-3), then please
submit
the
same comment against each clause in turn, with a note in the comment to indicate
that
you
have submitted the same comment against multiple clauses (identify the clauses).
This
will
alert the respective section editors to the fact that a cross-clause issue has
been raised,
thereby permitting them to make prior arrangements for
proper resolution during the meeting
(for
example, by bringing together two tracks for a joint
resolution).
6.
Editorial vs. technical comments. A large number of the comments submitted in
the first
review
cycle were really editorial in nature but were identified as technical (or even
technical
binding). Please don't do this. If you truly believe
that clarifications or wording changes would
substantively alter the technical content of the draft,
then by all means submit such comments
as
technical. However, if you recognize it to be an editorial issue, or are not
sure, then submit
the
comment as editorial. It is the responsibility of the editors to elevate the
importance of
a
comment from editorial to technical if they believe that it represents a
material technical
change
in the draft.
In any
case, submitting a comment as editorial does not mean that it will
automatically be
handled by the editor; a commenter can always insist
that his or her editorial comment be
brought before the group for consideration. Also, the
editors have no incentive to reject your
editorial comments without good reason, as you can
always resubmit it in the next round,
and
they do not want to be dealing with the same comment over and
over.
Try to
avoid submitting vast numbers of technical binding comments as well.
(Technical
binding comments will have a much more substantial
impact on the commenter when we
start
WG voting; at that time, the commenter will be asked to be physically present
when
his or
her comment is being resolved, and will be required to perform a signoff
after
it is
resolved.) Technical binding comments represent a serious technical problem
with
the
draft that the committee has not fixed and that will cause you to vote against
the entire
802.17
standard. I recommend starting with a technical comment, and then, if the
committee
decides to reject it, resubmitting as a technical
binding comment if you disagree with the
rejection.
7.
While I realize that most of us are engineers and thus likely to be
perfectionists, please try
to refrain from submitting comments on
wording, spelling and grammar issues at this stage
in the draft. Obviously, if such an issue
makes it impossible to comprehend the meaning, or
makes the clause technically incorrect, then a
comment is justified. Otherwise, keep in mind
that:
firstly, we are a very long way away from even sponsor ballot and should be
focusing on
technical completeness rather than fixing the English;
and, secondly, the draft is currently quite
volatile and incomplete, and so you may well be fixing
language in a paragraph that will vanish
in a
subsequent review cycle, thereby wasting not only your time but that of the
entire
committee. If you must make such comments at this early
stage, then at least please make
them
editorial so that the editors can deal with them offline rather than expending a
lot
of
valuable meeting time. If you wish to work with the editors in fixing the
issues, say so in
your
comment.
8.
Please try to submit comments that are accompanied by suggested remedies that
are
as
complete as you can make them. For example, if you have an issue with a figure
and
have
an alternate figure in mind, submit your proposed replacement in any acceptable
form
(or
even bring a hand-drawn version to the meeting!). If you are recommending a
change in
text,
try to provide the alternative text in the suggested remedy field, or as a
separate file
along
with your comment. This will not only simplify the editor's task and speed up
the
production of the draft, but can also significantly
improve the chances of the committee
accepting your comment without much discussion, as your
intent will be much clearer.
Note
that as we get much closer to Sponsor Ballot, we will be summarily
rejecting
comments if their suggested remedies do not
specify exact replacement text where
applicable. Getting into the habit of submitting
precise remedies will substantially improve
the
chances of your comments being accepted by the committee down the
road.
Best
regards,
- Tom
Alexander
Chief
Editor, P802.17