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

[IEEE 1788]: Post-ballot comment resolution

IEEE-1788 members (and Jonathan FYI),

I must apologize:  Due partially to inaction on my part, we
missed the deadline for filing for our standard for the
January 30 meeting of REVCOM (the IEEE committee that
reviews the procedures followed by working groups).
The next deadline for Sponsor (e.g. me, as chair of
the sponsor committee) to submit the material to REVCOM
for review is February 13.  If we can make this deadline,
good, but the next deadline is  April 24, for the June 5
meeting. As Sponsor,
I would need to collate all results and prepare formal
submission materials several days before
either deadline, so the working group should have these
questions resolved by that time.

Below, I enumerate unresolved questions
regarding the Sponsor Ballot comment disposition.

First, a comment resolution committee must be formed.  The duties
of the committee are to decide what to do about the comments.
The comments can be "accepted", "rejected", or "revised," and
a formal explanation must be given for any rejected or revised
comments.  The officers decided that they could be the comment
resolution committee, but we need to be sure all of us agree.
In fact, the entire working group can be the comment resolution
committee.

I therefore ask if there are any objections to the P-1788 officers
constituting the comment resolution committee.  (Please
respond within several days.)

Second, there are some rules regarding disposition of comments.
The balloters themselves have classified comments as "technical"
or "editorial," and the comment resolution committee can
reclassify them.  However, any ultimately-classified "technical"
comments that are accepted or revised necessarily require
a recirculation.  Since there are several of these on the
list of comments, and John and I have tentatively accepted
them, there is a good chance a recirculation will be required.
(I understand any new definitions do constitute additional
technical material that requires a recirculation.)

Since we achieved consensus with the primary ballot, comments
made during the recirculation should only address changes
made during the document.  However, a recirculation will
require some time, so we do run some risk of not completing
the process of REVCOM approval before the PAR expires on
December 31.

I have attached the comment resolution spreadsheet, in which
tentative dispositions (column T) and responses (column U)
have been inserted.  (The responses, mostly due to John,
will need to be formalized and made more succinct, but
they nonetheless give suggestions.)  As editor, John had
questions about the following comment numbers (where the
comment numbers appear in column C and the the actual comments
appear in column P).

There are several comments about which John and I had questions.
Please focus on these:

Please look especially at the following comments.

By Hossam Fahmy:
I88 on p67/6
I86 in 12.12.10
I84 Table 12.2
I75 Table 10.3

Vincent Lefevre
I37 Definition of bounds.

Piotr Karocki
I31 Reverse numbering of levels!

Marco Nehmeier
I12, I11 on implementing mid()

Also, please focus on all comments classified as "technical"
for which the disposition is either "Accepted" or "Revised".
If sent to REVCOM this way, this would require a recirculation
ballot.

ALSO NOTE: THE ENTIRE STANDARD HAS ACHIEVED CONSENSUS THROUGH
           SPONSOR BALLOT, SO THE ONLY PARTS OF THE STANDARD
           THAT SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT
           ARE THOSE REFERENCED IN THE COMMENTS.  THE MOST
           IMPORTANT OF THESE ARE THE "TECHNICAL COMMENTS"
           FOR WHICH THE BALLOT RESOLUTION COMMITTEE ACCEPTS
           OR ACCEPTS IN REVISED FORM THE PROPOSED CHANGES.

Sincerely,

Baker
--

---------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment: edits-for-1788-sponsor-ballot-comment-resolution.xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet