RE: Items found in BPDP Jane Bachman [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
I'm not sure one is in the works either but just wanted to post
discrepancies that I recently found and to make a recommendation for the
final production section as well. -Jane
From: SISO-SAC: Reed Little
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Items found in BPDP
From: "Reed Little" ([log in to unmask])
*** This message was generated from SISO-SAC ***
i didn't know (or forgot) a BPDP change was in the works.
somoe problem we discovered when we stood up the HLA-E PDG. i
idea if they were fixed since the new BPDP draft was posted
outside of my
view. ignore this post if the issues have been fixed.
the re-ballot rules should be changed so folks don't have to
their vote is the same as for the previous version of the
for recirculate ballots, a balloter's previous vote should
they want to change it.
there is an overload of term "ballot". it's used the following
for the request to vote that initialy goes out (n),
the action of voting and making comments (v),
the returned vote (n).
separate terms should be used for each of these three to advoid
need to change the ballot rules to discuss what happens when
votes to pass a ballot but the DG wants to incorporate changes
suggest that if a 75% majority of the PDG votes to have yet
round, go ahead and do it.
also, the BPDP is ambiguous wrt the situation where the document
pass a ballot - can the DG incorporate comments from balloters
voted yes ? i suggest - yes.
clause 184.108.40.206.1 states "The PDG Chair and SAC TAD nominate a
Group Editor from the DG membership and submit the name for SAC
the DG editor should instead be decided by the DG membership,
the most interest in who is in that position.. the editor should
be approved by the SAC.
the BPDP needs a definition for PDG membership which supports
kick-off meetings. kinda hard to expect folks to be registered
to the PDG
reflector at the kick-off meeting. similarly, for new members to
PDG during its lifetime. how can we expect a new member to be
to the PDG reflector when the new member is a walk-up at the
suggest the following definition for a PDG member:
? Have SISO membership
? Requested registration to the SISO reflector established for
clause 220.127.116.11 refers to clause 4.6 as containing information on
organization. this appears to be incorrect - 4.6 is
"Step 6: periodic Review". i'm not sure what the correct
To reply:[log in to unmask]
To start a new topic:[log in to unmask]
To view discussion:
To (un)subscribe:[log in to unmask]
with the word unsubscribe in the message body.
To unsubscribe from the SISO-SAC list, click the following link: