[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
stds-802-16: 802.16.1 Selection Process for Session #7
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: stds-802-16: 802.16.1 Selection Process for Session #7
- From: "Roger B. Marks" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 23:47:39 -0700
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org@fixme
- In-Reply-To: <38DA9271.3251E8B4@newbridge.com>
- References: <38DA9271.3251E8B4@newbridge.com>
- Sender: email@example.com
People have been asking about the 802.16.1 selection process for
Session #7. I'd like to clarify the situation.
Here is a typical question/comment:
>It appears as though there will be 2 PHY and 2 MAC proposals that
>will likely be presented in May. I have been looking through the web
>site, but could not find clarification on the voting process for
>May. Is there any document or procedure that we could look at?
>1. It has been stated that 75% of the total working group vote is
>needed to win:
>What if neither proposal garners 75%? What is the process then? We
>are concerned that lots of chaos could ensue by individuals trying
>to use their influence perhaps even to defining new rules
>2. Are the voting members required to chose between the two PHYs and
>MACs or is there a "grading" system for each proposal as was the
>case at the previous meetings. If there is a grading system, than
>how do you measure the 75% total vote figure?
Although we will need to finalize the details, the process for
Session #7 is already fairly well defined. It is described in the
letter-ballot-approved Document IEEE 802.16-99/05 ("Development Plan
for the 802.16.1 Air Interface Standard")
The basic philosophy of the Development Plan is that the
contributions are in the hands of the proposers up until the time
when the Working Group accepts a draft at Session #7. Until then, the
Working Group is temporarily entrusting the process to the proposers.
We have offered our constructive feedback and have given them free
reign to mold the proposals in accordance with our goals.
The ultimate goal of the Working Group is to agree; in other words,
to reach consensus. The proposers may have different goals. However,
as long as they move us toward our goal of consensus, we let them
remain in the driver's seat. Session #7 is the deadline for the
proposers to deliver us to a consensus on our baseline draft
document. Afterwards, the Working Group will assume responsibility
for the draft and will begin refining it.
Regarding Session #7, the Development Plan says that invited
proposals as well as suggested improvements and mergers will be
presented. The Session outputs are to be "Drafts selected by Task
Groups; Selections confirmed by Working Group."
So, we will listen to the invited proposals (on Tuesday, I suppose)
and the suggested improvements and mergers (probably on Wednesday).
Then, probably on Thursday, the MAC and PHY Task Groups will each
select a draft. [We won't hold parallel MAC and PHY sessions during
any of this, and we won't hold any other 802.16 sessions during the
voting.] On Friday, the Working Group will take up confirmation of
the Task Group selections.
In 802, technical decisions are made by vote; that's why there is no
provision for numerical scoring at Session #7. A 75% majority is
always required to pass a technical motion. We will schedule agenda
time for the consideration of motions to approve documents as the MAC
and PHY portion of a baseline 802.16.1 standard. We will debate the
motions, and then we will vote. We will work on this until we pass a
motion, or until we give up.
If we give up without passing a motion, then our Development Plan, as
described in IEEE 802.16-99/05, will have, for the first time, missed
a deadline. We will need to go to a backup plan. The most
straightforward backup plan is to put off selection of the baseline
draft for another meeting.
However, I am optimistic that the existing Development Plan will
succeed. That's because the Working Group has a powerful incentive to
reach consensus. If it does, it can keep the process on track for
timely delivery of the standard. It can also take full possession of
the process and assume responsibility for making (by 75% majority)
the technical decisions needed to refine the proposal toward a final
consensus. Working Group members do not need to fully support a plan
in order to support a motion to accept it as a draft.
Please notice that the Development Plan imposes no constraint on what
document we may consider for our baseline standard. Out of courtesy
to our invited proposals, motions to accept them will get first
crack. If these motions fail, then motions to accept some other plan,
including, for example, a document that was submitted under the
category of "suggested improvements and mergers," will be in order.
If any such motion passes at the 75% level, we have a baseline
standard. I am optimistic that 802.16.1 won't leave Session #7 empty
As for the full details of the voting procedure, we'll specify them
before the Session gets underway.
I'd also like to mention the quorum issue. As you know, we need the
presence of at least 50% of the members for a binding vote. That's 38
people. I think we are likely to have a quorum. Of our current
members, 59 attended Session #6, 53 attended Session #5, and 64
attended Session #4. Therefore, I think the odds of 38 at Session #7