Re: [802SEC] Fwd: P802.16g Disapproval Notification
What I find somewhat mystifying is why you chose to allow these
voters to submit comments directly rather than via MyBallot. I hear
your words about not having encouraged the practice, but failure to
discourage it comes to the same thing as encouraging it.
It isn't uncommon to have to enter a small number of comments
received after the ballot has closed (when MyBallot is no longer
available for use by the ballot group), but when that is necessary,
the "rogue comment" mechanism can be used by you (or your designee)
to add such comments to the comment database, thus making the process
as transparent as possible, both in the eyes of RevCom and the
balloters. However, at least in my experience, it is unusual to have
to handle more than a handful of comments that way.
Having read the RevCom comments, particularly the ones that indicate
they were having difficulty understanding exactly what was being
presented to them, I am not at all surprised that they bounced the submission.
At 06:17 09/06/2007, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>To: 802.16 Reflector
>cc: 802 EC Reflector
>I have unfortunate news to report on P802.16g.
>On 26 April, after three Sponsor Ballot recirculations and a 99%
>approval ratio (136 Approve, 2 Disapprove), I submitted P802.16g/D9
>Yesterday, the approval request was rejected by the IEEE-SA Standards
>Board, upon RevCom's advice.
>To the best of my understanding, the core reason for the rejection
>was that some of voters submitted comments directly to the Working
>Group instead of using the IEEE-SA's myBallot system. This was partly
>related to the unresolved comments of the two disapprove voters:
>This issue was raised by several RevCom members prior to the meeting.
>Phillip Barber (the Task Group Chair) and I prepared responses to
>those comments for RevCom consideration, arguing that the WG did
>follow documented procedures and, because it was required to address
>all comments, had little choice in how to proceed:
>I participated by telephone in the RevCom meeting of 6 June to
>discuss these issues but was unable to reverse the opinion.
>[I would like to add that the RevCom administrator responded to the
>research in our response by indicating that 802.16-07/012r4 seems to
>have not been included in the second recirculation; if so, it was
>likely due to an accidental omission on my part, for which I assume
>responsibility. However, RevCom at no time raised this issue in its
>deliberations, so it does not appear to have directly affected the
>During the RevCom meeting, I requested advice as to what kind of
>approach we could follow to assure that we satisfy RevCom's concerns.
>When no clear answer arose, I requested assignment of a RevCom
>"mentor" to provide feedback and assurance that our future steps will
>be satisfactory. Geoff Thompson volunteered.
>The formal notice of disapproval is below, and at:
>I am pleased to see that it provides some explicit directions on how
>we can proceed: "The Sponsor must conduct a recirculation ballot to
>show all unresolved comments associated with negative votes, and
>their responses, to the ballot group. The Sponsor is encouraged to
>input all comments and responses into the myBallot system for ease of
>submittal package review by RevCom. The Sponsor shall inform the
>ballot group that the myBallot system must be used as the mechanism
>for ballot comment submission."
>The middle sentence may be the most challenging. Based on my
>understanding of the software, I am not currently aware of any way to
>input comments and responses into the myBallot system prior to a
>recirc. I have inquired with IEEE-SA staff as to whether they can
>arrange a way to do so.
>RevCom does not hold conference call meetings during the summer, so
>the next chance for RevCom review of this draft is 26 September. This
>delay will cause pain to the interesting parties. Since the base
>standard will by then be more than three years old, it appears that
>we may need to address the rule prohibiting amendments after three
>years. There are some exceptions to the rule, but I don't fully
>understand the language in the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations
>Manual, so further research will be required.
>I'm copying the IEEE 802 EC so that other Working Groups will be
>aware of this problem. Working Groups receiving comments outside the
>myBallot system will need to decide whether to address those comments
>or to ignore them. I am concerned that they will face risk either
>way. In any case, it would certainly be wise to make an effort, in
>your Sponsor Ballot cover letters, to steer your voters toward the
>use of myBallot.
>Roger B. Marks <email@example.com>
>NextWave Broadband Inc.
>Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access
>Begin forwarded message:
>>Date: June 8, 2007 09:59:57 AM MDT
>>Subject: P802.16g Disapproval Notification
>>8 June 2007
>>NextWave Broadband, Inc.
>>4040 Montview Blvd
>>Denver, CO 80207
>>cc: Paul Nikolich, C/LM Liaison
>> Richard Snyder, MTT Liaison
>> Michael Kipness, Program Manager
>> William Ash, Program Manager
>> Kim Breitfelder, Manager-Standards Editing and Production
>> Geoff Thompson, RevCom mentor
>>RE: NEW P802.16g/D9 (C/LM + MTT) IEEE Standard for Local and
>>Area Networks - Part 16: Air Interface for Fixed and Mobile Broadband
>>Wireless Access Systems - Amendment 3: Management Plane Procedures and
>>I must inform you that P802.16g was disapproved as a new amendment
>>Std 802.16-2004 by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 7 June 2007.
>>The Sponsor must conduct a recirculation ballot to show all unresolved
>>comments associated with negative votes, and their responses, to
>>group. The Sponsor is encouraged to input all comments and
>>the myBallot system for ease of submittal package review by RevCom.
>>Sponsor shall inform the ballot group that the myBallot system must
>>as the mechanism for ballot comment submission. Geoff Thompson will
>>RevCom mentor to the Sponsor.
>>David L. Ringle
>>Manager - IEEE-SA Governance, Policy & Procedures
>>IEEE Standards Activities Department
>>445 Hoes Lane
>>Piscataway, NJ 08854
>>TEL: +1 732 562 3806
>>FAX: +1 732 875 0524
>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.