Re: Comments on the IEEE-SA draft of P1788
John, Michel, stds-1788,
Yes, I think Michel is right. I think any changes should be officially
documented, even minor editorial ones, and we cannot consider
the document to be changed during the Sponsor Ballot.
I append the relevant portion of the IEEE-SA Policies and Procedures.
Someone needs to determine whether the changes John has made
are to substantive or editorial; I think the MSC (of which I am
presently co-chair and slated to become chair) can do that. If
they are substantive, it would require a recirculation (repeat)
of the Sponsor Ballot.
I suggest John submit each suggested change (i.e. each change
he has made) as a comment along with his vote. I think MyProject
will allow him to do that, even if he has already voted, n'est pas?
I'm not sure at the moment who will actually make the changes
in the final document, be it John or IEEE staff.
Best regards,
Baker
============================================
5.4.3.3 Comments in the ballot The Sponsor shall consider all
comments that are received by the close of the ballot. Comments
received after the close of balloting will be provided to the
Sponsor. The Sponsor shall acknowledge the receipt of these late
comments to the initiator and take such action as the Sponsor
deems appropriate.
The Sponsor shall make a reasonable attempt to resolve all Do
Not Approve votes that are accompanied by comments. Comments that
advocate changes in the proposed standard, whether technical or
editorial, may be accepted, revised, or rejected.
Sponsors shall provide evidence of the consideration of each
comment via approved IEEE Standards Association balloting tools.
Until the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments
can be based on any portion of the proposed standard. Comments
not based on the proposed standard may be deemed out-of-scope of
the standards balloting process by the Sponsor.
Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments
in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions
of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted
proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the
balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved
comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are
not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed
out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be
addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be
considered for a future revision of the standard.
Comments addressing grammar, punctuation, and style, whether
attached to an Approve or a Do Not Approve vote, may be referred
to the publications editor for consideration during preparation
for publication. It should be borne in mind that proposed
standards are professionally edited prior to publication.
Comments received before the close of ballot from participants
who are not in the Sponsor balloting group, including from the
mandatory coordination entities, require acknowledgement sent to
the commenter and presentation to the Sponsor comment resolution
group for consideration. The Sponsor shall send an explanation of
the disposition of the mandatory coordination comments to the
commenter.
5.4.3.4 Recirculation ballots
Changes may be made in the proposed standard to resolve Do Not
Approve votes that are accompanied by comments or for other
reasons. All substantive changes made since the last balloted
proposed standard shall be identified and recirculated to the
Sponsor balloting group. All unresolved Do Not Approve votes with
comments shall be recirculated to the Sponsor balloting group.
The verbatim text of each comment, the name of the Do Not Approve
voter, and a response by the Sponsor conducting the resolution
of comments shall be included in the recirculation ballot
package. Responses to comments that are not accepted verbatim
shall include sufficient detail for Sponsor balloting group
members to understand the rationale for rejection of the comment
or revision of the change proposed by the commenter.
Further resolution efforts, including additional recirculation
ballots, shall be required if Do Not Approve votes with new
comments within the scope of the recirculation are submitted.
The Sponsor is not required to conduct a recirculation ballot
solely for Do Not Approve (Negative without comment) votes.
============================================
On 01/05/2015 10:10 AM, John Pryce wrote:
Michel
On 5 Jan 2015, at 15:38, Michel Hack <mhack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
But I'm confused about those SVN changes. Isn't the document out of our
hands now? Shouldn't these changes be submitted as IEEE-SA comments?
Apologies for my ignorance of procedure. I will find out how to do this.
John
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------