Re: [10GMMF] Update on May05 TF meeting
Paul,
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:
- “Accept”;
- “Accept in principle”
together with a new remedy;
- “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.
Regards,
David
David,
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?
Regards,
Paul Kolesar
SYSTIMAX®
SOLUTIONS
1300 East Lookout Drive
Richardson, TX 75082
Phone:
972.792.3155
Fax: 972.792.3111
eMail:
pkolesar@systimax.com
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> |
|
|
To
| STDS-802-3-10GMMF@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| [10GMMF] Update on May05 TF
meeting |
|
Dear 10GBASE-LRM,
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
Day3
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.
SOME POINTS CONCERNING COMMENT REVIEW IN WG
BALLOT
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.
Regards,
David
Cunningham