|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
It is concerning that this all seems to be unofficial or word of mouth procedure.
I looked at the SB bylaws, SB om and the RevCom site. The only published policy mention of Public Review that I could find was in the SB om:
126.96.36.199 Comments received as a result of a public review
If a comment is received as a result of a public review process, that comment will be addressed by the Sponsor and a disposition returned to the commenter, along with information concerning their right of appeal.
The OM text is vague. What is sufficient information on right of appeal to provide the commenter? Is there boiler plate text somewhere? Do we just say, “You have a right to appeal. See the IEEE Standards Board Operations Manual 5.8.2 (or a similar pointer to the IEEE 802 appeal process).”
and in the RevCom comment resolution guidelines:
Further guidance and interpretation with reference to myBallot tools
There is an obligation for the Sponsor to provide evidence of consideration of each comment via approved IEEE-SA balloting tools regardless of whether the comment is associated with a Do Not Approve, Approve, or Abstain vote.
During the appropriate ballot period, IEEE public review and non-voter comments shall also be considered and presented to the ballot (comment) resolution group.
Since this paragraph says that the public review comments have to go to the BRC and doesn’t say they need to go to the voters, it is probably the basis for saying they don’t have to be put in myBallot.
Attached is the email Soo Kim is discussing during our EC telecon meeting.
------ Forwarded Message ------
From: "Soo Kim" <email@example.com>
To: "Geoffrey Thompson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Paul Nikolich" <email@example.com>
Sent: 1/29/2015 4:34:03 PM
Subject: Review requested: Response on IEEE 802 Public Review AI
Good afternoon Geoff,
This e-mail is to inform of you of the following.
A response to the AI from Nov '14 meeting on public review (PR) was sent to you on Jan 15. Please review and you had any additional questions or comments on the response, do let me know.
In preparation to conduct beta test the PR system, to analyze the user interface and performance, Adrian, Jon R, and you have been invited from IEEE 802. If you are interest in participating on this activity, please confirm your interest by tomorrow, 30 January. A kickoff web conference meeting is scheduled for 9 February, 11:00-12:30 pm Eastern, to explain the Public Review process and provide an initial description of the system. The beta testing will be open after the kickoff meeting through 15 February 2015.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Soo Kim <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Good morning Geoff,
During the discussion on public review, following action item was assigned to me at the Nov. EC closing;
Please find responses below;
1) When is a WG required to submit public review (PR) comments to RevCom; during the submission or 10 days prior to the review date?
- Along with the normal RevCom submittal (by the submittal deadline after ballot is complete and they are ready for SASB approval).
2) Who is responsible for uploading the PR comments as part of RevCom package? Would this be automated?
- In order to bring the comments into the myProject system, manual intervention is required. The WGC/Sponsor Ballot Designee will have a method to 1) extract comments that change a draft so that they can include them in a recirculation package and 2) submit all PR comments to be included in the RevCom package as an additional file.
The sponsor/working group chair will need to determine how and when the comments are brought into myProject.
Scenario 1 - If the comment is cause for a change not previously shown to the ballot group (as a recirculation could have already been run while the PR period is open, where that change may have occurred based on a previous ballot comment or working group change), then it shall be added prior to the next (or future) recirculation (utilizing the additional file upload function in the initiate recirculation area).
Scenario 2 - If the comments do not cause a change, the comments will need to be entered at the time of RevCom submission by utilizing the additional supporting file(s) upload in the RevCom submission area.
Note - the sponsor could submit the PR comments received to the full ballot group in a future recirculation even if they caused no change; however, there is no requirement for them to do so.
So, while there is an automated component to export the files from the PR system, the system is not tied to myProject so manual intervention is required. In the future the intent is to try and fully automate the process but we are not there yet.
3) What is RevCom’s position?
- RevCom may review the responses to PR comments (because they shall be considered and the response is the indication of consideration---of course they will also consider whether the responses are appropriate) and ensure that if a comment causes a change to the draft that the comment is included in a recirculation.
Please review the responses and let me know if additional clarification is needed.
On Monday, you should have received invitation from Yvette to beta test the PR system. During the kickoff web conference meeting on 9 February, additional information is expected to provide and I hope you can participate.
Soo H. Kim
Soo H. Kim
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.