[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
stds-802-16: Suggested 802.16 Document Digestion Process
- To: "802.16" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: stds-802-16: Suggested 802.16 Document Digestion Process
- From: Scott Marin <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 11:21:44 -0500
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
[Notice: It is the policy of 802.16 to treat messages posted here as non-confidential.]
As a new working group, 802.16 must develop a process for digesting
input contributions to produce output documents.
The input part of the process is beginning to work well as evidenced by
the substantial number of contributions. Contributions are generally
being submitted that reference specific items from the call for
contributions and with specific instructions on what to do with the
The Montreal meeting is our first opportunity to deal with the digestion
and output part of the process. I'd like to suggest the following
1) All participant should feel that their contributions have been fairly
2) All numbered (accepted) contributions should be attributed to a
sub-task group for action. The task group chairman should suggest a
sub-task group organization and each document should be attributed to a
sub-task group for action. The task group chairman should request
approval of this plan along with approval of the task group agenda.
3) Each contribution should be introduced at the 802.16 plenary or at
the task group level, but the real work gets done at the informal
sub-task group level (3-6 people) where the decisions are made (by
consensus) on what to do with the contributions. The document author
normally participates in the sub-task group meeting to support his
4) The general goal of the meeting is to produce output documents that
reflect the consensus of the group.
5) The outputs may take several forms including a loose collection of
several contributions, a consolidated working document, a preliminary
draft, a draft, or a document approved for forwarding to the next level
of approval. (Generally the title of the document should reflect the
stage of maturity.) (The use of square brackets [ ] around unstable or
controversial text is suggested as a way for the group to move forward.)
6) Document editors are extremely important to deal with the mechanics
of compiling a document, but content of the document should reflect the
consensus of the sub-task group members that prepared the text. Editors
normally don't change the text.
7) Output documents, prepared in sub-task groups, should be presented
and approved by the task group. Likewise, task group output documents
should be presented and approved at an 802.16 plenary. The approval and
review part of the process allows everyone in attendance to see and buy
into the work of each sub-task group.
8) The 802.16 chairman's report (or meeting minutes) should clearly
identify (and may even contain) the output documents from the meeting.
While input documents are retained in the document archive for reference
they normally become inactive. Only output documents or documents
specifically identified as being carried forward remain active inputs to
the next meeting.
9) Voting and comment resolution for draft standards or other major
output documents should follow the IEEE and 802 rules.