Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: 802.21 SB Recirculation



Dear Andrew,

 

I would have no issues with that.

However I would still appeal to all reviewers to make an effort to review the draft in the current cycle and submit their comments as part of this cycle.

The earlier we get to these comments the better.

 

Kind Regards

-Vivek

 

 

 


From: Andrew Myles (amyles) [mailto:amyles@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:16 PM
Subject: RE: 802.21 SB Recirculation

 

G'day Phil

 

You suggested that the entire draft be open for comment during the next recirculation. This is an excellent compromise that encourages progress but also enables allows full and proper review.

 

If the current ballot does not achieve 75% then the course you suggest is automatic. If the current draft does reach 75% then it would require a change in the normal process.

 

Is the Sponsor willing to authorise such a change? If so then I will shut up.

 

Andrew

 


From: Phillip Barber [mailto:pbarber@broadbandmobiletech.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 January 2008 9:40 PM
Subject: RE: 802.21 SB Recirculation

Andrew and All,

 

Your point that many Sponsor Ballot Members may not have had as much time as they may like--due to the intervening holidays--to formulate and submit comments on the Draft is well taken.

 

However, I submit that whatever comments received should be very welcome and useful to continue to improve the Draft. Given that the Ballot has yet to achieve a 75% approval, such comments are in fact critical. I believe that Vivek was most correct in processing the ballot in this manner, providing the best opportunity to improve the Draft given the meeting schedule timeline, etc…, avoiding wasting a valuable meeting cycle in Taipei.

 

And since another recirculation of the Draft subsequent to the Taipei meeting is inevitable, Sponsor Ballot Members will have additional opportunity to again comment on the Draft.

 

The only thing that 802.21 Members may give consideration to is to once again allow the entire Draft to be open for comment during the subsequent recirculation. I would say this point may be especially poignant if the Ballot once again fails to achieve a 75% approval rate in the current Ballot cycle.

 

Thanks,
Phillip Barber
Chief Scientist
Wireless Advanced Research and Standards
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.

 


From: Andrew Myles
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 9:58 PM
To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Cc: 'Gupta, Vivek G'
Subject: 802.21 SB Recirculation

 

G'day Vivek

To be clear, I am not advocating any particular closing date. I am simply advocating that the members of the SB pool (who include people form outside the 802.21 WG and its e-mail reflector) be given a "reasonable" period to properly evaluate all of a complex 345 page draft that failed its initial SB. Either 4 or 7 "effective" days is unreasonable. That said, I believe that a good compromise would be a ballot that started on 2 Jan 08 and ran for 30 days.

You note that the "intent is to make the Jan meeting useful and let the WG resolve comments.". However, such an intent is potentially misguided because it runs counter to the overall goal of developing a "good" standard by making full and proper review more difficult. We should look for a way to make the Jan meeting useful, but not at the cost of making the SB "useless".

You also note that you have been told, "it is inappropriate to try and resolve comments while the ballot is still open". I believe the advice was that it is inappropriate to send contradictory resolutions to RevCom and that contradictory resolutions are more likely if one starts comment resolution early. This means the WG could start resolving comments as long as they were willing to also check the resolutions for consistency at a later date. This is something that happens during every ballot resolution anyway.

I am sure the WG members can generate enough comments to resolve during the Jan meeting regardless of the closing date of the ballot, thus making the Jan meeting useful. If they can't then one can only assume the draft is in very good shape and almost ready to send to RevCom. In this case, a couple of weeks of extra review should do not harm..

Andrew

 


From: Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 January 2008 2:16 PM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles); IEEE 802.21
Subject: RE: 802.21 SB Recirculation

Dear All,

 

We have had extensive offline discussions on this topic with Andrew. I am sympathetic to his cause.

However, we posted the updated draft D8.0 on Dec-15 (as soon as the Editor had it ready).

We started the ballot re-circulation on Dec-20, since it took us a few days to extract comment resolutions from Commentary file and update the spreadsheet on IEEE-SA website.

The ballot now ends on Jan-9, just a few days before Jan interim meeting.

 

This gives 20 days for SB re-circulation and 25 days from the day when updated draft was posted. This is the best we could have done, given when the updated draft was ready.

We checked with Bob Grow (Chair 802.3) and others, and it is not uncommon to hold ballots during this time of the year.

IEEE-SA website requires only 10 days for SB re-circulation though many believe this should be at least 15 days.

We are still going with 20 days for re-circulation and 25 days since the draft has been available.

 

Since the ballot did not meet 75% Approval rating, the entire draft is in scope of re-circulation. The draft has been updated based on comments and resolutions developed by WG.

However in spite of the updates, significant parts of the draft remain the same and hence it should take significantly less time to review just the changes in draft as opposed to

reviewing the entire draft as part of original ballot.

 

Andrew has been advocating that we should start the ballot on Jan-7 and close 30 days later. This would clearly render the Jan interim meeting relatively meaningless.

From my limited experience of past ballots (and Andrew agrees), 80% or more comments are submitted only in last few days of ballot (irrespective of length of ballot).

Also, I have been told that it is inappropriate to try and resolve comments while the ballot is still open.

According to Bob Grow, such a project was submitted to RevCom recently,with contradictory comment rebuttals and it seems that RevCom required an additional recirculation because of it.

 

The intent is to make the Jan meeting useful and let the WG resolve comments.

If there is anything else that we can do, while helping the WG meet the above goal, please do let us know.

 

Kind Regards

-Vivek

 


From: Andrew Myles (amyles) [mailto:amyles@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 2:10 PM
To: IEEE 802.21
Cc: Gupta, Vivek G
Subject: RE: 802.21 SB Recirculation

 

G'day 802.21 SB pool members,

The recirculation SB on D8.0 started on 20 Dec 07 and was originally scheduled to complete on 6 Jan 08. Assuming most people took the time off between Christmas and New Year, this gave voters at most 4 business days to review a document that is 343 pages long, which is clearly unreasonable.

I protested to the Chair of 802.21 and suggested that a full and proper review required significantly more time, particularly as the entire document (all 343 pages) is open for review. I suggested that this recirculation SB should be scheduled to take at least the same length of time as an initial SB (30 days) because it is effectively equivalent in scope to an initial SB.

I was told that the rules only require a 15 days for recirculation SBs regardless of whether the initial SB ballot failed, the scope of the necessary review, or the number of holidays in that time. I was also  told that a longer ballot was impractical because it would not allow comments to be resolved at the Taipei meeting.

It is certainly within the letter of the rules to hold a 15 day recirculation SB. However, I assert it is not within the spirit of the rules. The aim of the SB process is to encourage full and proper review by a larger group than the WG members. A 15 day ballot over the Christmas/New Year break fails to achieve this goal by providing insufficient time for review, effectively disenfranchising many members of the Sponsor Pool.

It would be convenient to resolve comments in Taipei. However, such convenience should not be at the expense of a full and proper review. I would also note that comment resolution could start in Taipei on comments received at that point.

The closing date of the recirculation SB on D8.0 has now been extended to 9 Jan 08. This provides an additional three days of review. However, I believe the effective review period of 7 business days is still woefully inadequate for all the reasons articulated above.

I would be interested in the views of 802.21 SB pool members on this issue, particularly those members who are not voting members of the 802.21 WG. It would be useful for the purpose of closing the discussion quickly to focus on the question of whether the recirculation SB on D8.0 be extended to at least 30 days?

Andrew Myles

 

 


From: Gupta, Vivek G
Sent: Thursday, 27 December 2007 3:33 AM
To: IEEE 802.21
Subject: RE: 802.21 SB Recirculation

The closing date for this SB re-circulation has been extended to 9-Jan-2008 11.59 PM ET.

 

Kind Regards

-Vivek

 


From: Gupta, Vivek G
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:38 AM
To: IEEE 802.21
Subject: 802.21 SB Recirculation

 

 

Dear 802.21 Members,

 

The 802.21 SB re-circulation has been initiated with a start date of 20-Dec 2007 and an end date of 6-Jan-2008.

Please update your votes and send in any comments that you may have.

We have a conference call on 8-Jan-2008 to talk about comment resolution and next steps for Jan meeting in Taipei.

 

I would also like to take this opportunity to wish you all Happy Holidays and thank you all for your participation and contributions in IEEE 802.21.

 

Kind Regards

-Vivek

 

Vivek Gupta

Chair, IEEE 802.21

 

Intel Corporation

2200 Mission College Boulevard,

Santa Clara, CA - 95136.

Ph: 408 765 7766 (desk)

      503 473 2456 (cell)

 


Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:18 PM
Subject: Updated Draft D8.0

 

 

An updated version of draft P802-21-D08-00

http://www.ieee802.org/21/private/Draft%20D08.00/P802-21-D8-0.pdf

 

and an updated Commentary file 21-07-0340-07_SB_Comments

http://www.ieee802.org/21/private/Draft%20D08.00/21-07-0340-07_SB_Comments.USR

  

have been posted in the private area of the 802.21 web site.

 

The draft has been updated based on comments that have been resolved,

as part of Sponsor Ballot as per the above Commentary file.

The updated draft will be placed in IEEE-SA area and SB re-circulation would be initiated shortly.

 

Best Regards

-Vivek