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

Re: [802SEC] July 2014 802 EC taskforce minutes uploaded



Ooops,  Dave Ringle’s later email shows this was discussed,  and I was there.

I hate it when you forget these things :0).

 

I think the point we are discussing is not explicitly covered in the proposed new rules.

It states: “All public review comments received during an IEEE Public Review

shall be considered by the Sponsor and a response shall be

provided to the commenter. If the response

indicates that a change is to be made to the draft, the commenter is entitled to receive a copy of the revised

draft from the Sponsor upon request.”

 

It does not state whether you are allowed to consider your draft complete and submit to

RevCom while there is an ongoing public review on the same document.

 

However,  given the 30 days for the original sponsor ballot,  a few days to faff around

writing resolutions,  and the (40 day) RevCom submittal deadline,  RevCom would at

least know if public review comments had been received and not responded to.

 

Best Regards,

 

Adrian P STEPHENS

 

Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile,  UK)

Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)

 

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

 

From: Stephens, Adrian P
Sent: 28 July 2014 10:47
To: 'Geoff Thompson'
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; Soo Kim; Dave Ringle
Subject: RE: [802SEC] July 2014 802 EC taskforce minutes uploaded

 

Hello Geoff,

 

I’ve updated the minutes to capture the action item as:

 

Soo Kim to alert appropriate body (Yvette, Dave Ringle) that this (the public review process) might cause significant issues for 802 standards publication / progressions.   Geoffrey Thompson offers to review material describing this process.

 

The current SB OM contains:

5.4.3.7 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.

 

That is the sum total of the current rules.

I know that staff are working out the rules for public review,  and they will be considered by the ProCom and

standards board in due course.   I attend ProCom meetings as an observer, and I’m on the standards board.  You can be sure I’ll pay attention to this issue.    IMHO the only workable solution that is likely to satisfy ANSI is for the entire sponsor ballot process to last at least 60 days so that there is a process to respond to comments and an opportunity for them to affect the draft.

 

 

Best Regards,

 

Adrian P STEPHENS

 

Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile,  UK)

Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)

 

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

 

From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@ieee.org]
Sent: 25 July 2014 18:02
To: Stephens, Adrian P
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; Geoff Thompson; Soo Kim; Dave Ringle
Subject: Re: [802SEC] July 2014 802 EC taskforce minutes uploaded

 

Adrian/Colleagues-

 

I want to congratulate Adrian on coming up with a scary and effective way to get folks to review the minutes.

I know the open references in the list below drove me to go back and see what I allegedly agreed to.

 

Regarding #2, I don't think I offered to work on a solution, that is a ProCom/RevCom issue.

 

I was merely pointing out that there seemed to be a significant potential for "Public Review" (with a 60 day ballot period) to lengthen the time that it takes tightly managed 802 draft projects to go through the Sponsor Ballot cycle.  

 

Whether or not this is actually the case seems to not be defined at this point because (as far as I know) there is no defined procedure in the SASB P&P for how to deal with Public Review comments that come in after close of initial Sponsor Ballot but meet the Public Review deadline.

 

If the deadline doesn't mean anything, as is effectively the case on comments we receive on international ballots from SC 6, then the comments can just be treated as input to our maintenance process.  However, I somehow doubt that will be the case.  JTC1 comments are entirely outside the scope of RevCom review.  I don't think failure to address Public Review comments can escape the RevCom review process if the SA wishes to keep its ANSI accreditation.  Therefore, we need actual procedures on what the review requirements are for a RevCom submittal package so we can assess the possible impact on the time it takes to get from opening of Sponsor Ballot to RevCom package submittal.

 

Staff did not seem to have crisply defined material in that area.

 

I am happy to take the action item to review such material and

            - Report/critique on whether it is fully defined

            - Report on whether it will impact our schedules

            - Report on whether I see any problems with the system and its P&P

 

Clearly, this is a problem/requirement that appears to go well beyond the scope of what have been classified and handled as "rogue" comments in the past.

 

Regards,

 

            Geoff

 

On Jul 25, 2014, at 2:50 AMPDT, Stephens, Adrian P <Adrian.P.Stephens@INTEL.COM> wrote:

 

Tentative minutes are here:

 

 

Summary of Actions

Note that time ran out in the meeting, so there wasn’t time to review this, and (in particular) assign due dates.

1.       Geoffrey Thompson to assist Karen McCabe to find a way to represent views of the constituency (i.e., IEEE members, IEEE-SA project members) on this topic.

2.       Soo Kim to alert appropriate body (Yvette, Dave Ringle) that this might cause significant issues for 802 standards publication / progressions.   To consult with Geoffrey Thompson on a suggested approach.

3.       Paul Nikolich to advertise that Jon Rosdahl is the person to submit change/enhancements to these tools to.

4.       Christina Boyce to report stats on use of join.me

5.       Christina Boyce to write down description of mechanism she described used to evaluate user experience.

 

 

Best Regards,

 

Adrian P STEPHENS

Office: +44 (1793) 404 825

Mobile: +44 (7920) 084900

USA Mobile: +1 (408) 239 7485

 

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

 

---------- 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.