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

Re: [802SEC] Balloting Comments from IEEE 802


I have some more comments to add.

First, I support the comments that have gone before, wholeheartedly.

Additionally, I have found over the years that improvement in the process 
has not been monotonic. That changes that I have managed to have happen 
once do not become part of the system and often the fight to have them 
included in the system is starting from ground zero all over again.

In particular, I have repeatedly been told that the existing (Plus4 ??) 
database is a major problem that gets in the way of improvement. Balloting 
services needs to be on a database that is integrated with the other 
systems that run in the SA Office AND whose modifications and applications 
support is adequately funded and run from inside the Standards Department.

Comment handling is a recently arrived concept for balloting services. It 
is only in the last very few years that they have risen above the concept 
of just copying them and mailing them to the WG Chair. They operate under 
the impression that counting votes is what is important. That is, in fact, 
not the case in quality standards development. Quality standards 
development is about review and effective revision based on the review. 
Approval is a fall-out of this process rather than the primary activity.

The result of this is that there is a wildly diverse set of mechanisms for 
comment handling across IEEE WGs

To support this balloting services needs to understand and be able to 
service the needs of WGs in terms of feeding comments (votes to but they 
are less of a problem) to WG Chairs on a real time basis in a format that 
is suitable for direct absorption by whatever comment resolution database 
is used by the WG.

Further, balloting reports should be available on an ongoing basis during 
the balloting period without human intervention by balloting center staff. 
Web or ftp query strongly preferred with a reasonable download format 
(Excel or  pullable into Excel would be a good baseline) so that 
hound-dogging by WG chairs is encouraged and supported.

It comes down to a very few things:
         Low and predictable delay at the front end
         Minimized processing required by BC staff
         Results that can easily be handled mechanically
         No human processing required of the results by BC staff

All of this seems to me to be within reasonable reach.


At 09:05 AM 10/12/01 -0500, Jim Carlo wrote:

>Any other comments before I send compilation to Angela Ortiz as comments
>from IEEE 802 WG chairs? Let me have your comments by 16October.
>Jim Carlo ( Cellular:1-214-693-1776
>Vice Chair, IEEE-SA Standards Board
>Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
> From Roger Marks (IEEE 802.16 WG Chair)
>I'm really pleased to hear that the Balloting Center is seeking 802's
>opinion on its operation. Here are my comments for incorporation into
>our response.
>The Balloting Center has done a good job of running my electronic
>Invitations to Ballot. However, I have had many frustrations with
>them in running my first two Sponsor Ballots. I have observed:
>*an general unwillingness to commit to a schedule and an occasional
>retraction once a commitment has been made
>*a distribution of a recirculation to the wrong ballot group
>*the distribution of a ballot announcement, without review by me,
>that included many serious errors (e.g., the URLs were wrong) and
>that released a password without my approval (it wasn't an important
>password, but the Balloting Center had no way to know this)
>I have tried to work constructively with the Balloting Center. For
>example, following discussions and a meeting, I revised my comment
>submission database program to create output in the Balloting
>Center's XML format. {It turns out that this was not very useful.}
>Here is what I would like to see:
>(1) The option to run my own ballot using the ballot group created by
>the Balloting Center. This would take less of my own time and energy
>and could be done on a tighter and more predictable schedule. The
>hardest part would be to ensure that I understood the RevCom
>(2) The following changes in the Balloting Center's operations:
>(a) A procedure for committing to a ballot launch date one week
>before the actual launch. At this date, the Working Group Chair
>should submit the ballot announcement for review. The announcement
>should include the URL to the ballot package on a server to be
>arranged by the Chair. The ballot package need not actually be posted
>to that server until the day of the launch. Alternatively, if the
>Balloting Center is asked to post the ballot package, then they
>should be willing to promise 48-hour service.
>(b) A commitment to offer the Working Group Chair the opportunity to
>review the announcement before the launch.
>(c) A process to return comment data to the Working Group in a
>structured format that can be readily imported into a database. Right
>now, all we get is an email record of each comment.
> From Vic Hayes (Former WG Chair of IEEE 802.11 and now Regulatory Ombudsman)
>Although I am no longer involved, I would like to propose that the groups
>can assign multiple addressees for the courtesy copy of the comments and the
>votes, so that the tasks can be done by one and checked by another, for
>I did it by making a small distribution list and then asking the courtesy
>copy to be sent to the list. But that is more work to do for our precious
>++++Request for Balloting Feedback+++++++++
> >Dear Jim:
> >
> >As I mentioned on my previous E-mail, we at the IEEE Standards Department,
> >are committed to enhance the environment for developing standards,  With
> >that in mind, we would like to give the 802 participation (voice) regarding
> >balloting services' issues.  Therefore, we would like to ask you in your
> >capacity of working group chair, if you were to change the system at the
> >balloting center, what would do?. What things do you think can be done
> >differently.
> >
> >We would appreciate your comments and especially , being as specific and
> >objective as possible.
> >
> >Please bear in mind that your comments (802 group) may be an important tool
> >to help us improve our services.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Angela O.
> >
> >:- > :-> :-> :-> :-> :-> :-> :-> :-> :-> :-> :-> :-> :-> :-> :-> :->
> >Angela Ortiz
> >Program Manager - Technical Program Development
> >IEEE Standards, 445 Hoes Lane
> >Piscataway, NJ  08855-1331  USA
> >
> >
> >Telephone:  +1 732 562-3809
> >Fax:              +1 732 562-1571
> >E-m:  ><
> >