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

Re: [10GMMF] Update on May05 TF meeting

I too am sorry noytbto be at the meeting.
I believe Jim and Nick have clarified the process with David Law and others. They will clarify the process in person at the meeting.
As far as I understand it the brief summary is as follows:

 The Task Force votes on a proposed response to a comment. The vote is on what is entered into the response box.

Possible entries into the response box are:

  1. “Accept”;
  2. “Accept in principle” together with a new remedy;
  3. “Reject” together with an explanation.
The first proposed response to get 75% approval of the TF is the response to the comment.
A comment remains open until a response is agreed by the committee with a 75% vote.
Once a response has been voted "in" it can only be considered again if a motion to reconsider is made and passed.
Responses to a currently open comment that have previously failed should not be reconsidered without a motion to reconsider.  New responses with some difference compared to failed ones can be considered - until one gets consensus.
If at the end of comment review of the draft there are comments that, after reasonable effort on behalf of the committee, a response could not be agreed on - then they remain open comments.  I believe open comments must be published along with future versions of the draft.
Paul, in an email it is hard to cover all cases. Hopefully, Jim and Nick can clarify this is person at the meeting.
There is no need to vote to accept the comments as valid this should happen naturally as a result of what is put into the response box.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Paul Kolesar
Sent: 16 May 2005 20:47
Subject: Re: [10GMMF] Update on May05 TF meeting

sorry you can't make the meeting.  

Could you offer clarification of the comment resolution process notes that you provide below?  It appears that I may be misinterpreting your statement of operating procedure, because it appears to state that there are two 75% votes required for each change to the document.  To paraphrase your words, first a comment must get 75% approval to be accepted, then another 75% approval for specific action to the draft.  My confusion stems from an apparent conflict with all my past experience wherein comments required only one vote for a change to take effect.  The comment proposes a specific remedy, which may be agreed as stated, or modified and agreed, or rejected by the group with 75% vote.  Regarding the second option, it is typical to "accept a comment in principal" when the resolution is agreed in the spirit of the original proposed resolution, but restated or adjusted to better reflect the wisdom of the group.  In either case, there is but one vote.  Are you saying the same thing, or something different?

Paul Kolesar
1300 East Lookout Drive
Richardson, TX 75082
Phone:  972.792.3155
Fax:      972.792.3111

David Cunningham <david_cunningham@AGILENT.COM>
Sent by: owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@IEEE.ORG

05/12/2005 03:05 PM
Please respond to
"IEEE P802.3aq 10GBASE-LRM" <stds-802-3-10gmmf@IEEE.ORG>

[10GMMF] Update on May05 TF meeting


Sadly I can't attend the May comment review meeting.  I am pleased to announce that Jim McVey has kindly agreed to chair the meeting.  Please give him your full support at the meeting. There are a lot of comments to resolve and it will take both the May and the June meeting to resolve them, more on this later.

The likely format of the meeting is as follows:

Day 1
Chairs opening remarks
Editors report
Ad Hoc reports
Presentations (see the 10GBASE-LRM website)
Comment review
- Decide order of comment review
Comment review

Day 2
Comment review

Comment review and brief closing session
Adjourn comment review until June meeting

Comment resolution of D2.0 will take two interim meetings, May and June. Therefore, plan to be at the June meeting. Some comments on D2.0 require further study these will be assigned to ad hoc(s) for study between the May and June interim meetings. Then they will be resolved at the June meeting.

The first recirculation of D2.1 will now occur out of the June meeting.


Unlike taskforce review, comments can't be pushed from one ballot to the next.  Comments propose changes to the document.  To change the document the taskforce must accept the comment by a 75% vote and then a remedy must be accepted by a 75% vote.  If a comment is not accepted with a 75% vote it has been rejected. All comments must be considered and a response written for them with agreed (by a 75% vote) changes implemented in the draft before a recirculation ballot can occur.  

All responses should be respectful and provide thoughtful justification for the response especially if other than accept. Response generation can be delegated to subgroups or even individuals, but the customary practice is to only do this delegation by a motion of the group, typically at the end when time is running out. The comment database is the master minutes for comment resolution.  Therefore, there is no need for minutes on comment resolution.

I hope you all have a very successful meeting in Austin and I look forward to seeing you at the London interim.

David Cunningham