| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Roger and all,
I have encountered a few problems in the process,
which I am putting them together here, from the editoral/technical to the
general.
1. Comments 61, 63-65
are editorial with unanimous acceptance. However the commenter entered the
proposed resolution as a '*'. Is it a database problem?
2. Comments 279, 280 and 282 are clearly outside of
the scope of the recirculation and do not address any comment, as far as
I could see, of 80216-04_11r5 or p. 641 and 642 of the
'P80216-REVd_D4delta.pdf' document. Although I missed it in the
reply comment phase (and so did the other commentors) still I intend
to reject them on this basis (though I may sympethesize with the
intent).
3. in face-to-face meetings a BRC usually
comes out with a set of resolved comments, but also with a group resolution
reply to the rejected comments. While we have in the current off-line process
the commentors to resolve and put together the text for the resolved comments,
we don't have a similar procedure for putting together the text for the
rejected comments. Is it possible to use the "Reason for Group
Decision/Resolution" field in order to justify a negative vote? Still
someone (Roger?) will have to compile the reasons given by negative voters
into a coherent "group resolution". Is it possible that REVCOM would be
satisfied with the voting results without an accompanying
reason?
Avi |