RE: stds-80220-requirements: Cancel - Requirements call
The goal all along has been, and continues to be, to develop a document
that has enough support within the WG to gain approval. As I mentioned
on the call a few weeks ago I believe that the CG process has about run
its course and that it's going to take a new process that involves the
WG to get the SRD approved.
The quality of the options presented to the WG by the CG will have a
substantial impact on the progress made at the next meeting. The game
plan for the next meeting is to have a set of options for that the WG
can modify or vote to approve.
Jerry,
I would like to see the agenda for Tuesday changed from an Ad-Hoc
session to a WG session. Before forming the ad-hoc groups it is
important that the ad-hoc group use as baseline text the option that has
the greatest support within the WG. If a section has 75% then there is
no need for an ad-hoc group, however if a section does not pass then
there is obviously a need for a smaller group to develop alternatives.
We need the WG to vote on the various options on Tuesday and then let
the ad-hoc groups refine the options later in the week.
It also important that the WG have an opportunity to consider
contributions related to the SRD so that all of the options are out on
the table.
My suggestion is to amend the agenda as follows for Tuesday:
SRD update - 30 minutes
Contributions related to the SRD - 2 hours
Use the remainder of the day to vote on the options in the various
sections.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert D. Love [mailto:rdlove@nc.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 8:15 AM
To: Gal, Dan (Dan); Humbert, John J [NTK];
stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements: Cancel - Requirements call
Dan, your comments reflect my concerns. However, I think we owe it to
John,
the Requirements Document editor, to make a last attempt at obtaining
group
consensus for a base document. John told me that he would like to gain
consensus for a base document at the March meeting and I told him that I
would support his effort to do this. Notwithstanding my support in this
attempt, I am uncertain that we will be able to succeed taking that
path.
That said, if we take your advise and strive for consensus building,
true
professionalism, and compromise, we may be able to reach that goal at
our
March meeting.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gal, Dan (Dan)" <dgal@lucent.com>
To: "'Robert D. Love'" <rdlove@ieee.org>; "Humbert, John J [NTK]"
<JHumbe01@sprintspectrum.com>; <stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 4:47 PM
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Cancel - Requirements call
>
> Bob,
>
> I appreciate your good intentions, but I believe that the open issues
are
fundamental and need to be discussed and agreed upon in the presence
(and
hopefully the active participation) of the entire working group. I sense
that the Requirements CG has reached a dead-end and has become
dysfunctional. In the interest of moving the work forward, we need to
conduct a section-by-section review by the working group. The review
should
be an intensive interactive process that would strive for consensus text
building. Such a process requires true professionalism and compromise
making
and should be allowed to get as much time as it takes.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Migaldi Scott-W10265 [mailto:W10265@motorola.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 2:57 PM
> To: 'Robert D. Love'; Humbert, John J [NTK];
stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Cancel - Requirements call
>
>
>
> I do not think this would be a good idea. Since the meeting has
already
been published many of us have made travel arrangements to be there in
time
for an afternoon session.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
Robert D. Love
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 13:49
> To: Humbert, John J [NTK]; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements: Cancel - Requirements call
>
>
>
> John, would it make sense to schedule an ad-hoc meeting of the
Requirements Group on Monday morning 8:00 - 10:00am to get a jump start
in
resolving issues that are still open going into the March meeting. I
have
been in touch with Face-to-Face Events and was told that meeting rooms
for
small groups (<50) are still available for Monday morning.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Robert D. Love
> President, LAN Connect Consultants
> 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
> Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
> email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Humbert, John J [NTK]" <JHumbe01@sprintspectrum.com>
> To: <stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:47 AM
> Subject: stds-80220-requirements: Cancel - Requirements call
>
>
> Today's conference call is cancelled, however I would encourage
everyone
to review revision 11r and post alternatives for each section to the
reflector along with a rational. The focus CG over the next few weeks
needs
to be on developing no more that 4 alternatives for each section that
the WG
can consider at the next meeting.
>
> I am expecting the person who posts an alternative for a particular
section on the reflector to pull together a power point slide
presentation
for the March meeting that summarizes the current text and the debate on
the
reflector.
>
> SRD version 11r1 can be found at
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/20/Drop_Box.htm.