|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Sorry-Here it is with the attachment Dear EC Members I am writing this brief note to clarify, what seems to have been, significant confusion about the status and ballot comment resolution process in 802.20. I am also requesting that an EC e-mail ballot be conducted to progress 802.20.2 to Sponsor Ballot. First with respect to the terminology used by 802.20 in the Working Group ballot comment resolution spreadsheet. The following terminology has been used in the Working Group: * Accepted: Means that the comment was implemented exactly as proposed by the Recommended Changetext given by the commenter. This is equivalent to the term Agreed used in the Sponsor Ballot process. * Accommodated: This term is used to indicate that either a change was implemented differently than exactly as proposed by the Recommended Changetext given by the commenter; or that text that should satisfy the comment was already there but had been overlooked by the commenter. The latter meaning is frequently used when the commenter is in the room and agrees that this exisiting text accommodates his comment. (Note that the commenters presence is specifically noted in the resolution to comment 3 on Letter Ballot 3.) This term is equivalent to Agreed in Principlein the Sponsor Ballot process. * Not Accepted/Disagree: These terms are used when the Working Group disagrees with the commenters comment. This is equivalent to Reject On the original Letter Ballot of 802.20.2 there was 1 no voter and with 2 editorial comments and 1 technical comment. The two editorial comments, were accepted in principal (i.e. accommodated) and the technical comment was rejected. Details can be found in the attached spreadsheet. None of the resolutions to these comments required any changes to the draft and none were made. The resolution to the comments that were accommodated, were done so to the satisfaction of the commenter. Given that no changes were made to the draft, the comment resolutions were all recirculated in a 15 day Letter Ballot for approval and for forwarding the draft to Sponsor Ballot.. The result was 16-1-0. The one remaining no vote was by the original commenter on the basis of the original technical comment. Please let me know if you have any questions, I also request that Paul run an EC e-mail ballot on the motion presented to the EC in Vancouver on the progression of 802.20.2. Best regards, Mark Klerer ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.