RE: Items found in BPDP Jane Bachman <a href="/index.htm?LOGON=A3%3Dind0604%26L%3DSISO-SAC%26E%3Dquoted-printable%26P%3D2329590%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3DUTF-8%26XSS%3D3%26header%3D1" target="_parent" >[log in to unmask]</a> <a href="/index.htm?LOGON=A3%3Dind0604%26L%3DSISO-SAC%26E%3Dquoted-printable%26P%3D2329590%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3DUTF-8%26XSS%3D3%26header%3D1" target="_parent" >[log in to unmask]</a> 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

-----Original Message-----
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 ***


SAC-ites

i didn't know (or forgot) a BPDP change was in the works.
attached are
somoe problem we discovered when we stood up the HLA-E PDG. i
have no
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.

reed

================================


the re-ballot rules should be changed so folks don't have to
re-vote if
their vote is the same as for the previous version of the
document.
for recirculate ballots, a balloter's previous vote should
remain unless
they want to change it.


there is an overload of term "ballot". it's used the following
ways:

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
confusion.


need to change the ballot rules to discuss what happens when
there are
enough yes
votes to pass a ballot but the DG wants to incorporate changes
for some
technical comments.
suggest that if a 75% majority of the PDG votes to have yet
another ballot
round, go ahead and do it.


also, the BPDP is ambiguous wrt the situation where the document
didn't
pass a ballot - can the DG incorporate comments from balloters
who
voted yes ? i suggest - yes.


clause 4.2.3.5.1 states "The PDG Chair and SAC TAD nominate a
Drafting
Group Editor from the DG membership and submit the name for SAC
approval.".
the DG editor should instead be decided by the DG membership,
they have
the most interest in who is in that position.. the editor should
still
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
a
PDG during its lifetime. how can we expect a new member to be
registered
to the PDG reflector when the new member is a walk-up at the
meeting?
suggest the following definition for a PDG member:
? Have SISO membership
? Requested registration to the SISO reflector established for
the PDG.


clause 4.2.4.2 refers to clause 4.6 as containing information on
DG
organization. this appears to be incorrect - 4.6 is
"Step 6: periodic Review". i'm not sure what the correct
reference is.







To reply:[log in to unmask]
in BPDP>
To start a new topic:[log in to unmask]
To view discussion:
http://discussions.sisostds.org/default.asp?boardid=2&action=9&read993
5&fid1
To (un)subscribe:[log in to unmask]
with the word unsubscribe in the message body.

SISO: http://www.sisostds.org/






To unsubscribe from the SISO-SAC list, click the following link:
https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SISO-SAC