At 08:21 2001-08-28 +0100, Tim King wrote:
I request clarification here. As an active participant in ISO standards development, I would characterise that process as being issues driven. I can not perceive that it is possible to mandate a level of detail on the proposed change column of the ballot forms; the editor of the document has to demonstrate that the issue has been addressed through a resolution of the issue. Although the difference may only be subtle, is Adam right to claim that this IEEE activity is driven by change proposals? This issue begs a supplementary question: is someone collating all the ballot comments into an issues log that can be examined at all points in the life history of the development. This log should include a unique identifier and the eventual resolution.
The process in IEEE is very similar to the one in ISO, especially in the respect you are describing. I mentioned this in my 2001-07-22 18:08:51 response to Bob Spillers:
| Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 18:08:51 -0400
|
| > In addition to achieving consensus the IEEE advises:
| > "Lesson Learned: Just because you have over 75% approval doesn't mean you should automatically submit a standard for approval. Making sure the technical comments have been addressed is the most important issue, not just achieving 75% approval. "
|
| Yes, I agree. I believe Jim Schoening did an excellent job of processing (asking the committee to address) all the technical comments in recent ballots. This process is known as "ballot resolution" and it helps build consensus.
The last time, Jim listed all the ballot issues and was resolving 1-3 issues at a time over the E-mail reflector. Each issue had a unique identifier. Check the
E-mail reflector on 2001-01-25 and for the month or so afterwards ... look for subject lines that have something like "#2", "#3" ... this is the ballot resolution process that you desire.
FYI, just like ISO (without going into all the details that I'm sure you are aware of), the ballot resolution meeting produces a result, which is incorporated into the next draft/document (just like ISO, it is a paper describing changes). IEEE describes this process in its Standard Companion. I've excerpted this below ... the process below is the same as the one we are using now, except that we are at the 50% stage (majority Yes > No approval), rather than at 75% stage (ultimately required for passing formal Sponsor Ballot).
-FF
--------------------------------------------------
If you have achieved a 75% return, however, you can move onto the next stage of examining your rate of approval. Your goal is to have a 75% rate of approval from your returns, so your fi
rst step is to see how many approval votes you have and to address their comments, if any. Next, you must examine your negative ballots and their comments. Remember, a negative ballot must have comments attached. Those comments should explain any difficulties the balloter has with the current document and offer precise wording for changes that would turn their "no" vote into a "yes" vote. In many cases, the balloter may offer vague solutions or even no solution at all. At this point, the working group (or a subgroup established to resolve ballots) should examine the problem to see if they can resolve it on their own, or they may discuss the situation with the balloter and solicit more precise language. If none of this is successful, the ballot may be labeled nonresponsive. ...
Resolving negative ballots is easily the most time-consuming aspect of the balloting process. Many working groups will break a document down into sections and have a small group assigned to the
comments on that section. In many cases, what needs to be judged is whether satisfying the concerns of a negative balloter will reduce overall consensus from the majority of balloters. If so, then the negative ballot may need to remain unresolved.
If it is possible to resolve the negative ballot, this should be done. Sometimes the ballot review group (see annex B) won’t accept the proposal from the balloter but will offer alternative wording that the balloter will agree with. Sometimes the ballot review group will accept the comment outright. In either case, this would change a "no" vote to a "yes" vote. Sometimes resolving the comment is not acceptable and the ballot will remain unresolved.
In most cases, the negative balloter has to be contacted to see if he or she will change the vote or perhaps be willing to work out a compromise solution. This contact may be by phone initially. However, RevCom will inevitably require written proof from the balloter th
at he or she agrees with the resolution. You should therefore be sure to confirm all decisions in writing.
Occasionally, it is difficult to reach the negative balloter to gain his or her consent to a change. If such a problem should arise, you should document the number of times and methods by which you tried to reach that balloter and submit that information to RevCom. [RevCom is the committee that reviews the standards development work; this review occurs at the very end of the standards process to verify that the formal process has been folled. -FF]
The major element in all of these considerations is the time factor. All of this work of tallying and reviewing comments, coming to agreement on the action to take in regard to those comments, talking to negative balloters, and making the necessary changes to the draft can be extremely time-consuming. The ballot review group should therefore set a goal for itself of when they hope to conclude ballot review and at
tempt to stick to it if at all possible. Otherwise, ballot resolution can drag on interminably. Keep in mind the four-year life of your PAR, and develop a plan that will work with moving the project forward under that particular requirement.
--------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com
Standards, products, services for the Global Information Infrastructure