Print

Print


RE: Items found in BPDP James McCall <a href="/index.htm?LOGON=A3%3Dind0604%26L%3DSISO-SAC%26E%3Dquoted-printable%26P%3D2365124%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%3D2365124%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3DUTF-8%26XSS%3D3%26header%3D1" target="_parent" >[log in to unmask]</a> Reed,



After more detailed review, could you, or anyone else listening, provide
some clarification:



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.



One of the concerns that the recirculation rules address is the potential
that members of the ballot group may not respond to the recirculation
ballot. We actually have this issue with a current PDG. The implication of
your comment is that the PDG would ASSUME that if they did not hear from a
ballot group member that previously voted yes, that that member agreed with
all the changes. Considering the shortened review and voting period that is
suggested for recirculation, I personally think this might be a dangerous
assumption. I think we would want to make sure that we had a positive
response to accept the product for the SAC and EXCOM to justify the approval
of the product.



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.



My dictionary indicates the three uses of the term are all appropriate uses
of the term. Additionally, my review found no less than 15 distinct uses of
the term and various modifiers. However, throughout the review, there was
never a case when I personally had any doubt as to what was being discussed.
While I agree that the term is heavily used, I would hesitate to attempt to
come up with synonyms or distinct terms and make sure that we make all the
appropriate changes and retain the original concept. If we believe that
readers are confused by the multiple uses of the term, then I believe it
would be safer to address each confusing use of the term specifically rather
than rewriting the entire section. BTW, it is entirely possible that any
change of this nature would also drive a revision of the newly approved P&P.



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.



Agreed and you will see changes in the upcoming draft.



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.



Disagree. 4.3.7 specifically refers to "all ballots" and "all comments".
While the revisions made WRT the previous comment will change this sentence,
it will still require that "all comments" be resolved.



All other comments have been addressed or discussed in a previous posting.





Mark McCall (Anteon Corp.)
Warfighter Readiness Research Division
Air Force Research Laboratory
6030 S. Kent St. Bldg 561
Mesa, AZ 85212

(480) 988-6561 x231
DSN 474-6231

Caution: This message may contain competitive, sensitive or other non-public
information not intended for disclosure outside official government
channels. Do not disseminate this message without the approval of the
undersigned's office. If you received this message in error, please notify
the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.

-----Original Message-----
From: SISO-SAC: Reed Little
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: Items found in BPDP



wbquoteFrom: "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]
20in%20BPDP>
To start a new topic:[log in to unmask]

To view discussion: http://discussions.sisostds.org/default.asp?boardid=2
id1> &action=9&read9935&fid1
To (un)subscribe:[log in to unmask]
with the word
unsubscribe in the message body.

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

wbendquote



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