Re: stds-802-16:SYSREQ

[grfishel <grfishel@pa.net>]

[Notice: It is the policy of 802.16 to treat messages posted here as non-confidential.]

Jarrett, David (David) wrote:
> 
> [Notice: It is the policy of 802.16 to treat messages posted here as non-confidential.]
> 
> Brian:
> 
> Here are some ideas on procedures to help us move forward.
> 
> In the interest of speed, the Systems Requirements editor took the liberty
> of adding text to the System Requirements draft before the July meeting.
> These additions were either from 1) contributions that had not been
> discussed, or 2) discussion at previous meetings that was not reflected in a
> contribution.  This was an honest attempt to use common practice within the
> Internet standards community to speed the work up and provide early inputs
> to the MAC and Phy task groups.  However, it seems that this approach may
> have been counter productive, as much of the time at the July meeting was
> spent commenting on the process, and we only reached consensus on a fraction
> of the issues!
> 
> Going forward, Lucent proposes the content of the System Requirements
> document (and 802.16 documents in general) should strictly be based on
> contributions that have been discussed in the meeting, and result in agreed
> changes to the document.  We should never edit the document before proposed
> changes have been agreed upon.  This may actually speed us up, since the
> focus will be on agreeing on specific changes first.  Thus, we propose the
> following procedure:
> 
> 1) Contributions are made on reflector; should have proposals for specific
> edits (to text and figures), new work items, etc., at the end
> 2) Allocated to correct group(s) (some should be presented to multiple
> groups)
> 3) Discuss in group, if don't achieve "quick" (15 minutes?) consensus on
> proposal, refer to subgroup of interested parties to attempt resolution;
> bring subgroup proposal back to main group
> 4) Determine accepted proposals at final working group session
> 5) Edit document and Issue updated version after all proposals have been
> accepted
> 
> We may also want to consider chartering sub-working groups for large items
> (management, QoS parameters, etc.).
> 
> --
> -0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-
> David W. Jarrett                Lucent Technologies
> Voice: 1-408-952-7452   Wireless Broadband Networks Division
> Pager: 1-888-876-0854   890 Tasman Drive
> Fax: 1-408-952-7456     M/S 08-09
> E-mail: djarrett@lucent.com     Milpitas, CA 95035-7912Hi David,
Thank you for your comments on meeting procedure for the System 
Requirements task group.  I was appointed to chair the group at the last 
week's meeting and we are working to have better procedures in place for 
the Denver meeting.  Most of the problems mentioned in your email are 
being addressed. Brian is working to have an updated proposed draft 
document ready shortly.  The document should be available about two 
weeks before the next meeting. We will also have a new comment submittal 
form by line and page number. Line numbers will be added to the proposed 
document. Comments will contain suggested changes and a rational for the 
change. The comment period will end on Monday the 2nd of August to allow 
for compiling of comments. Comments will be compiled on a master list 
and resolved one by one at the next meeting. More contentious items will 
need to be resolved by voting according to Robert's Rules of Order. We 
will also have a time for new contributions at the next meeting. New 
contributions should have a recommendation on how the document should be 
changed and shall be made as a motion by the presenter with a second and 
a formal vote will be taken according to Robert's Rules.  I feel these 
changes will help develop the document in the shortest time. I hope you 
agree with these changes. Thank you again for your comments and I 
welcome them in the future.
Best regards
George Fishel