Re: stds-80220-requirements: Cancel - Requirements call
John,
I agree with all your comments including the progress is based quality inputs, people working toward consensus and having a spirit of consenus.
I will make the proposed change on the next version of the agenda. I do suggest we give people a dinner break similar to what was in the high level agenda before the Ad-Hocs. Additionally we may want to stop at 9:00pm. Those are just fine tunes, but overall good proposal.
Thanks for all your work,
Jerry Upton
In a message dated 2/20/2004 3:14:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, JHumbe01@sprintspectrum.com writes:
> 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.