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

Re: [802SEC] myBallot issues feedback


I want to weigh-in with Pat's position on this.

One of my chief gripes with the packages that I occasionally received when I was on REVCOM was that some Sponsors followed the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law by always recirculating all comments. This places the burden on the volunteer reviewer of sifting out the issues. I feel that this is (a) an unfair burden and (b) poor standards practice because it discourages thorough review of recirculation packages. In engineering terms, it destroys the signal-to-noise ratio of the recirculation package.

In the state of current technology, where postage costs are no longer a consideration, I strongly feel that MyBallot should, upon recirculation, systematically provide two versions or views of the comments on the previous draft they should be:
1) The unresolved comments noted as "Required" elements of a disapprove ballot.
2) All comments against the previous draft.

A comment need not be included in category 1) if "Required" elements of a disapprove ballot have been resolved to the satisfaction of the balloter, as determined during the balloter's participation in the comment resolution process AND the balloter is willing to sign off on the comment without seeing the new recirculation. My experience is that balloters will go both ways on this issue. Simple items will get signed off. Some comments may have been put in expressly to get the exposure to the balloting group that a recirculation provides, even if an appropriate resolution has been proposed.

While version/view 1) is part of the baseline content for a recirculation package, version 2) should be visible to voters. Also, REVCOM needs access to version 2) to be able to audit that "all comments have been considered".

I hope this helps.

Best regards,


At 04:03 PM 4/1/2005 -0700, Pat Thaler wrote:

A critcal issue is ensuring that we meet the intent of recirculating the issues where a voter is not satisfied. On many of our ballots, the vast majority of comments originally submitted as must be satisfied are resolved to the satisfaction of the voter. For example on one major project there were over 100 technical comments during sponsor ballot that the voters indicated were technical required. The voter was not satisfied by the comment resolution on fewer than 10 of these comments.

It would have been a disservice to the dissatisfied voters to bury their 10 comments in more than 100 comments in the recirculation. Now that we have moved to MyBallot, it is important to allow the voters to see the unresolved issues on recirculation without having to page through comments reading responses to find the those where the voter wasn't satisfied.

From my experience on RevCom, their job will also be made harder if they cannot easily see the comments where the voters remain dissatisfied.

That is why there needs to be a field value (either a new field or a new value for an existing field) to mark satisfied comments.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Grow, Bob
Sent: Thursday, 31 March, 2005 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] myBallot issues feedback


On issue two, the issue isn't the ability to flip Must be Satisfied
after ballot, this was only one possible way of providing the needed
feature.  The objective is to eliminate the unnecessary content from the
recirculation and submittal packages.  What David and I originally asked
for was a separate flag that indicates satisfaction with the response to
the comment/proposed remedy.  (802.16 has been doing this with
additional response codes while we use the separate variable.)

The ability to filter out satisfied comments would significantly improve
the signal to noise ratio both for users in Recirculation and at RevCom
review.  Commenters may be satisfied with the resonse for most
resolutions (accept, principle, and even reject when they accept they
were wrong).

--Bob Grow

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:17 PM
Subject: [802SEC] myBallot issues feedback

Dear EC members,

Please see the below message from Christina Sahr regarding the myBallot
issues that were brought up during the IEEE 802 Task Force meeting at
March plenary session.  If you have any further questions or issues,
forward them to Christina.


--Paul Nikolich

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 12:47 PM
Subject: 802 Task Force Meeting 3/16

> Paul
> Thank you for including me on the myBallot discussion during the Task
> Force
> Meeting on March 16th.  I am now back in the office and have prepared
> notes (issues and responses) below.  Please advise if I missed any
> or
> if further clarification is needed. Please distribute to those who
were at
> the meeting that need to have this information.
> Issue 1) Special Characters in the comment file upload.
> Resolution:  We are going to provide the user with a better error
> when the file does not load properly. We will adjust the help pages to
> clearly reflect what is and is not accepted.  we will also offer (in
> help pages) alternative solutions for uploading comments that have
> "special
> characters".
> The reason special characters cannot be used in the comment is because
> only
> comments containing standard ANSI-ASCII characters may
> be uploaded.  This does *not* include formatting (bold, fonts, italic,
> etc); special characters (symbols, non-ANSI-ASCII characters,
> non-English font sets, smart quotes, etc); nor special constructs such
> tables, math formulas (other than those that can be represented with
> standard ANSI-CHARACTERS)  or graphics.  If a voter's comments require
> of these, they should be placed in a Word document and then the word
> document referred to in the comment.   Multiple comments may be placed
> single word document and referred to as individual comments in the
> upload.
> All of this will be clearly identified in the help pages.
> Issue 2) User should be able to remove their Must Be Satisfied from
> comment after ballot has closed.
> Resolution: When the ballot has closed, myBallot will lock out all
> except to comment resolution until the next cycle (or forever if there
> is no next cycle).  Exceptions such as this (or vote changes) can be
> documented in the comment field by the sponsor, e.g. "Since the close
> ballot, the voter has indicated that he wants to remove his MSB and
> comment is considered cleared to the satisfaction of the user."
> The POLICY is that comments, MSBs and votes can *only* be entered into
> system during the official 'open' periods of initial ballot or
> recirculation. Staff will pursue further policy issues with ANSI and
> possibly consider "vote flipping" for future enhancements.
> Issue 3) Approval of Balance of the Ballot Group is no longer
> by
> the Sponsor Chair.
> Resolution: myBallot does not need a written authorization of the
> of balance since the system checks it automatically.  However, the
> sponsor chair can look at the ballot group and provide the WG Chair
> verbal approval to move to the next step (open the ballot).
> Issue 4) David Law cannot open a ballot
> Resolution:  I believe this is fixed, I have asked David to go into
> system and verify.
> Issue 5) Days of an invitation is not a full 24 hour day.  Example:
> Sponsor opens the invitation on Jan 1 at 12 noon and Staff
> approves the invitation on Jan 2 at 12 noon; the invitation starts at
> noon on Jan 2 and remains open for the number of days designated by
> sponsor/designee (usually 30 days).  However the counting of days
> at
> 12 noon on Jan 2 which is really only a half day.
> Resolution: Since Staff approval is needed to start the invitation,
> approval only can occur during business hours, there will always be a
> hours lag
> in time.  Staff or Ballot Designee should add one extra day on to the
> invitation days. Example:  If the invitation is to be open for 30 days
> request should
> really be for 31 days.
> In addition, we will modify the help pages to clearly say that the
> or invitation will run from the day of approval to 11:59pm on the
> requested
> close date.
> Issue 6) Ability to edit comments by the submitter once submitted.
> user should be able to delete or at least edit a comment once it has
> accepted into the myBallot system.
> Resolution: This has been covered before.  Once entered, comments are
> there
> for the duration and can be edited or deleted only by entering a new
> comment
> stating such.  We *do* allow changing the MBS state and vote as often
> desired *while* the original ballot or a recirc is in progress.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.