Subject: Re: Please vote yes - 1364.1 ballot
From: Clifford E. Cummings (cliffc@sunburst-design.com)
Date: Fri Jun 14 2002 - 11:40:42 PDT
Hi, all -
I stand corrected. Thanks, Paul.
I know that the Verilog committees reviewed and responded to all comments
from both positive and negative ballots. I did not remember that the
comments were sent out with the revised IEEE document. I did remember that
any yes vote could be changed to a no vote on the second pass. One big
difference this time around is that we should receive all comments
electronically, which should make responding easier than it was for the
Verilog Standards. For the Verilog Standards we had to request electronic
comments from each comment submitter and in some cases the comment
submitters either did not respond or had not kept a copy of the comments
(we had to hand enter comments before we could even respond).
I also remember some ballots being returned with what appeared to be
comments for the sake of making a comment along with a yes vote (these are
the comments that I was hoping to avoid).
One interesting side note on the electronic balloting process: I like
balloting electronically and I like being able to download an electronic
copy for review, but it may make sense to also send out a hard copy to
balloters. I do not recall receiving notification of the electronic hard
copy (may have been deleted by one of my filters or by me accidentally) and
I had to ask Bhasker about the ballot materials. This is not too different
from public companies sending ballots by mail but permitting electronic
balloting (yes I know there are some differences).
Regards - Cliff
At 01:41 PM 6/14/02 -0400, Paul J. Menchini wrote:
>Cliff and all,
>
>I had intended to weigh in on this earlier this week, but circumstances
>prevented me from doing so until now.
>
> > At 03:22 PM 6/12/02 -0700, Jim Lewis wrote:
> >>Cliff,
>
> >> One thing I would like to see change with the IEEE ballot process
> >>is to make ballot comments public so if other people agree, they can
> >>reinforce the comments the other balloters have made.
>
> > I don't even get to see the comments until after balloting is
> > complete.
>
> >>Or after the initial ballot, the comments and responses become public
> >>and a person is permitted to change their ballot based on the comment
> >>and resolution of someone elses vote.
>
>Let me point out that the process *does*, at minimum, make all comments
>accompanying negative ballots visible to all balloters--see below. So,
>there is most definiately and quite explicitly a chance for comments to
>be considered and for balloters to change their vote in response to the
>arguments of other balloters.
>
> > As a Verilog Synthesis standards group, we have to respond to all
> > comments and then send out for re-balloting. I don't remember if the
> > IEEE requires all received comments be sent or just the changes
> > made. I think it is just the latter. Considering how hard it is to
> > address all comments from both yes and no ballots, I'm really quite
> > glad that we do not have to send the comments to all balloters to try
> > to explain what we did and why we did it, rehashing what the committee
> > spent a lot of time addressing. If we had to please all non-
> > participant balloters, it would take an even longer-forever to get an
> > IEEE document passed.
>
>The IEEE balloting process requires that *all* comments accompanying
>negative ballots be recirculated to all balloters. Again, balloters are
>then allowed to change their current vote upon receipt of the comments.
>
>The DASC encourages *all* comments (including those accompanying
>positive ballots) to be recirculated (and responded to). The intent of
>both the IEEE and DASC requirements is to ensure that the resulting
>standard is as technically strong as is possible and is truly a
>consensus standard.
>
>Remember that unanimity of the balloters' responses is not required,
>only consensus. Nor are you required to rehash the deliberations of the
>WG. You are merely required to respond, in a technical fashion, to each
>comment. The comment can be as simple as "this issue was discussed and
>rejected by the WG." If you wish to elaborate, you may of course do so.
>Thus, I do not understand your comment that states that it is hard to
>address all comments from both yes and no ballots. True, it is a bit of
>work, but if your goal is to produce as technically strong an open
>standard as you can garner, I would not think that it is onerous to do
>so, especially since this step represents a small fraction of the work
>already put into the draft.
>
>In addition, the process requires that if changes are made as a result
>of a ballot comment, only those changes must be recirculated (together
>with the ballot comments). Any subsequent comments made in response to
>the recirculation must pertain only to the modifications--any comments
>at this stage pertaining to the unchanged portions of the draft are out
>of scope and may be addressed simply by labeling them as such. So, as I
>hope you can see, it is a terminating process.
>
>Finally, speaking as the sponsor of this project, as a RevCom member,
>and as a member of the IEEE-SA Board of Governors, the goal of
>minimizing work by discouraging comments is, I feel, entirely
>inappropriate and likely to be looked upon with disfavor if and when
>this standard comes up for approval within the SA.
>
>I will not comment on the rest of this exchange, as it primarily
>concerns the technical details of the standard. However, let me
>reiterate that a technical comment requires a technical response.
>
>If you have any questions about or need assistance with understanding
>and following the IEEE balloting process, I as the sponsor of this WG
>am standing by to assist.
>
>Regards,
>
>Paul
----------------------------------------------------
Cliff Cummings - Sunburst Design, Inc.
14314 SW Allen Blvd., PMB 501, Beaverton, OR 97005
Phone: 503-641-8446 / FAX: 503-641-8486
cliffc@sunburst-design.com / www.sunburst-design.com
Expert Verilog, Synthesis and Verification Training
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jun 14 2002 - 11:49:01 PDT