These guidelines are a supplement to the balloting process
notes in the body of the companion. This annex addresses some of
the most common situations that arise during the process of
resolving negative comments that result from a sponsor
ballot.
After your initial sponsor letter ballot is complete, a Ballot
Review Group (BRG) should be assembled to review and respond to
the comments. The timeframe in which this review has to be
accomplished is open; however, the sooner the better. The outside
limit is constrained by the four-year lifetime of your
PAR.
Your BRG may be your entire working group, but this is not
required and may slow down the process of resolving the negative
comments. An alternative to using the entire working group is to
assemble a smaller team of key people who have the technical
expertise to resolve the issues associated with the negative
ballots and who can meet on a more frequent basis to resolve the
specific problems that arise. If possible, this smaller group
should be drawn from the larger working group. If necessary,
others may be brought in on a “guest expert” basis
for specialized issues.
Regardless of how it is formed, it is the BRG’s
responsibility to respond to the comments made by the balloters.
The entire balloting group will review the changes the BRG makes
and have an opportunity to approve them or reject them. While it
is usual for the working group members to be a subset of the
balloting group, it is the balloting group (required to be
balanced and include all interested and affected parties) that is
judging the technical validity of the document at this point and
not the working group itself (which has no such
constraints).
Although only a 75% approval is required for a successful
standard, the BRG should make an honest attempt to resolve the
ballot comments. RevCom will look for this attempt. It is likely
that a standard receiving a 75% ballot approval will be approved
by RevCom, but it may receive closer scrutiny than a ballot with
a higher acceptance rate, especially if there is controversy
involved.
Note that all of the following formally applies only to
eligible voters. It is, however, the IEEE’s policy to make
no distinction between eligible and ineligible voters in terms of
trying to develop consensus and respond to comments—the
only distinction comes at the official vote tally for the IEEE.
Therefore, in terms of trying to resolve negatives or respond to
comments, treat all of them in the same manner and make sure you
document everything.
Note that all comments must be addressed as
follows.
Affirmative votes with technical comments
Since this is an affirmative vote, it is not necessary to
accommodate formally or reply to such comments. However, you
should consider incorporating them if they can be implemented
without raising objections from other balloters. Such changes, if
made, do constitute technical changes to the document and
must be clearly identified in the required recirculation ballot
draft.
Affirmative votes with editorial comments
Since this is an affirmative vote, it is not necessary to
accommodate formally or reply to such comments. However, you
should consider incorporating them if they can be implemented
without raising objections from other balloters. Such changes, if
made, do not constitute technical changes to the document
and need not be recirculated.
Please be aware that the entire standard will be sent to yet
another set of editors in the IEEE after it has been approved.
Although they do not have the authority to make technical
changes, these editors can make editorial changes, rewordings,
and formatting alterations.
Negative votes with specific comments
If the proposed change is acceptable as presented by the
balloter, then the objection is considered resolved. If all
objections in the ballot are met in this manner, the voter may
choose to change his or her vote to “affirmative.”
You should document this by a letter to the objector stating what
you have done so that there is no confusion. It need not be
longer than a few sentences stating that you did what he or she
wanted and, according to IEEE procedures, his or her vote has
been changed. The voter should confirm this change as
well.
A list of those voters whose votes have been changed in this
fashion should be included in the recirculation package so that
there is no ambiguity.
If the BRG does not accept the objection "as is" but proposes
an alternative solution or if the BRG rejects the objection, the
voter must be contacted by a technical reviewer who will explain
the decision. If the voter accepts the change, the objection will
be considered resolved. If the voter maintains his or her
objection, the objection will remain unresolved.
As a practical matter, all negative voters should be contacted
by email or phone if possible to discuss their rationale and
possible solutions. The final result must be followed up in
writing and confirmed by the balloter.
If a negative comment cannot be resolved positively, the BRG
should try to negotiate a change that will cause the objector to
change his or her vote to affirmative. At this stage, a phone
call is often more effective than several back-and-forth notes.
If it’s resolved to the objector’s satisfaction, it
should be confirmed in writing. If it’s unresolved, the
objector must formally receive a written reply giving the
rationale for the rejection of the voter’s
comment.
In all of these cases, the BRG needs to receive an email or
signed letter from the negative balloter concurring with the
change in his or her vote from “no” to
“yes.”
The following text is helpful in addressing negatives during
ballot resolution:
The group has taken the actions noted above to resolve the
concerns raised in your comment on this standard. We trust that
this action will allow you to withdraw your objection or change
your objection to an abstention. Please provide us with your
response so that we may properly report the disposition of your
comment. If a response has not been received within 30 days, we
will assume that our actions will satisfy your comment.
Negative votes with unspecific comments
Examples of these are “I vote ‘no’ because I
don’t like it” or “We don’t need another
standard like this.” Try to resolve the objection by an
email, phone call or letter soliciting specific objections. If
this does note result in more precise objections, then vote will
stand as an unresolved negative.
Negative votes without comments or abstentions
No further actions can be taken to resolve these ballots.
Ballots with combinations of all of the above
It is often the case that, within a single ballot, there are
instances of all of the above. These should be handled on a
line-item by line-item basis in the fashion indicated, treating
each specific objection as a “mini-ballot.” It is
often the case that balloters will change their “no”
to a “yes” on request if the majority of their
objections are met.
After you have resolved as many negative ballots as possible, you
should close down the negative response period and send the
sponsor the following:
A clean copy of the final revised draft or the changed
sections or a detailed list of the changes, whichever is more
appropriate considering the size of the document, the number of
balloters, and the number of changes.
(optional) A summary of the technical changes made.
Copies of the formal written responses to all unresolved
negative comments and copies of the originals of the unresolved
negative comments themselves (not a summary).
(recommended) A list of the votes that changed from
“no” to “yes.”
Copies of confirming letters or electronic mail that were
sent while resolving comments.
Copies of emails or letters from negative voters concurring
with the change of their votes to affirmative.
If technical changes have been made, the sponsor will send the
first four items from this list for a ten-day negative response
recirculation, giving everyone who voted on the original draft
the opportunity to review the changes and alter their vote if
they wish. The recirculation differs from the original
circulation in that nonrespondents are assumed not to have
changed their original (or amended) vote. This is the only stage
where balloters can officially change their votes.
If there are any new negatives as a result of the
recirculation, the BRG must be reconvened and the cycle must be
repeated. Fortunately, this rarely occurs, but don’t plan
on it not occurring. In this context, new refers to
new and never-before-seen objections made as a result of the
revised text. While additional negatives or comments to unchanged
(and unaffected) material need not be formally addressed, it is
better if they are addressed if at all possible.
There is absolutely no need to keep iterating until
100% approval is reached. The decision as to when a point of
diminishing returns has been achieved is left to the sponsor once
75% approval and consensus has been reached. Remember, there is
an obligation to the majority who have voted in favor of the
standard to approve and publish it quickly.
Assuming that there are no new negatives or that at least 75%
of the “yes/no” ballots are “yes,” the
sponsor will then submit the documentation to RevCom. The entire
draft standard must be submitted electronically even though only
part of it may have been recirculated.
Some proforma examples of responses for interpretation
requests follow.
The unambiguous situation
“The standard clearly states . . . , and users have to
conform to this.”
The “defect” situation (that is, if the
standard appears to be wrong)
“The standard states . . . , and users have to conform to
this. However, concerns have been raised about this that are
being referred to the sponsor for possible action at the next
revision.”
The ambiguous situation
“The standard is unclear on this issue, and no
distinction can be made between alternative implementations
based on this. This is being referred to the sponsor for
possible action at the next revision.”
The unaddressed issue
“The standard does not speak to this issue, and as such
no distinction can be made between alternative implementations
based on this. This is being referred to the sponsor for
possible action at the next revision.”
Conditional interpretation based on other
standard(s)
“The required behavior of this standard is dependent on
the requirements of another standard. If the other standard
requires aaa, then this standard requires bbb.
But if the other standard requires ccc, then this
standard requires ddd. A request for interpretation of
the other standard is being forwarded to its developing
committee.”
Substantially identical to a previous
interpretation
“This request is substantially identical to
interpretation #nnn, and the resolution of that
interpretation applies in this case.”
Substantially identical to prior request, but with
critical new perspective
“This request is substantially identical to
interpretation #nnn; however, in considering <rationale>
it appears that the previous interpretation should be
superseded. The current interpretation for this situation
(which does affect the previous conclusion) is . . .
”
In this case, an attempt should be made to notify the previous
requestor with the updated information.
Request for interpretation of a different document or of
a draft
“This request is for interpretation of nnn; the approved
standard is IEEE Std nnn. The requestor is asked to
resubmit this request if the question(s) are still pertinent to
the approved IEEE standard.”
Request is unclear (after attempt to contact requester
for clarification)
“This request is not sufficiently clear to permit an
appropriate interpretation. The requestor is asked to submit a
rephrased or more specific request.”
Some rationale, specific issue, or point of ambiguity should be
addressed in the feedback to the requestor.
Request is inappropriate
“This request is being returned to you because the
questions asked do not constitute a request for interpretation
but rather a request for consulting advice. Generally, an
interpretation request is submitted when the wording of a
specific clause or portion of a standard is ambiguous or
incomplete. The request should state the two or more possible
interpretations or the lack of completeness of the text. While
you referred to clause nnn, you have not indicated any
problem with the text. Please understand that it is beyond the
scope of this committee/working group to provide consulting
advice.”
