stds-802-16: Letter Ballot #1: motion approved

["Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>]

802.16 Letter Ballot #1 has closed. The motion has been approved.

Motion:

"To accept Document IEEE 802.16-99/05 
<http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/docs/99/80216-99_05.pdf> as 
the Development Plan for the 802.16.1 Air Interface Standard."

Open: 17 September 1999
Close: 27 October 1999

Motion carries: 60 Approve, 1 Do Not Approve, 1 Abstain
Approval ratio: 60/61 = 98.4%
Voting ratio: 62 voters out of 106 members = 58.5%

The comments received are enclosed below.

Roger

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Comments along with "Approve" votes

(1) The timeline is challenging but not absurd, and nothing is to be
gained by any relaxation at this stage. As with all plans it may need
to be adapted to meet constraints encountered during the development
process and timescales should not be held sacrosanct if the quality
of the standard is at risk. On the other hand no delays to planned
dates should be accepted without very good reason.

(2) Just a few minor comments on the schedule...

The turn-around time from comment resolution at a meeting to starting
a letter ballot (e.g., session #8) may be too fast (same day) because
the editor will need a couple days to fully integrate the comments,
fix formatting, etc. and then send the draft out. But a couple days
change here and there won't change the overall schedule.

The proposed work during the holidays (12/24, 1/5) in session number
5 might not happen, but that shouldn't be a big problem. Session #5
will probably have much discussion around the MAC/PHY proposals.

It seems to me that much work has to happen between session #6 and 7:
The invited proposals may need the help of editor(s) to unify the
look-and-feel of the documents to make them easy to compare. Also,
simulation/measurement results that allow for apples-to-apples
comparison of the proposals should be available at session #7. Thus,
session #7 seems the most "risky" part of the schedule to me.

(3) I assume that updates may be made to this plan as need by vote at
Plenary sessions or by letter ballot.

(4) I propose that Sponsor ballot recirculation end at 01/02/09 to
allow a full 10 working days of review.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Comments along with "Do Not Approve" votes

(1) Do Not Approve,
but will if the following issues are clarified:

-The relationship between uninvited proposals and suggested
improvements & mergers must be defined in detail. Especially if
suggested improvements & mergers have an easier track to be handled
in the meeting.
-To previous comment. Does "friendly amendment" mean
that the proposal automatically gets a free slot? If so, then strict
rules to what a "friendly amendment" is must be defined.
-What is the  due date for withdrawal of a proposal?

Obviously these items are not a problem if the number of proposals is
modest. But with a high number of proposals, we'll certainly run out
of time in the meetings (it is not fair if the chair don't allocate
equal opportunities like time for all proposals).

My opinion is, that improvements & mergers shall be highly encouraged
especially if they smoothen the process or helps in finding a
compromise. Nevertheless, attempts to slow down the convergence
through additional proposals (consuming time to process as well as
probably postponing decisions) should be somehow discouraged or
restricted. The schedule is anyhow tight, and should be to meet the
objectives of a standard in a foreseen future ...