RE: ad hoc group on evaluation criteria: Draft Down Selection Process document
Few comments and thoughts:
1] On slide 7 of the slide set:
"Motions for each proposal are voted on separately.
Proposals (or components) addressing similar issues are voted on at the
same time."
The above two statements are confusing as to what occurs separately and
what occurs at same time?
2] Again on slide 7 of the slide set:
"Proposal (or component) with majority vote is selected and should get
75% approval for text inclusion in the draft."
Not sure what is meant by first part of sentence, "Proposal with
majority vote is selected...." ....
Does that mean if there are "n" proposals for a component of draft spec,
and if two of them get say 80% and 90% (>75%) votes respectively, then
only the proposal getting 90% will be included in draft text?
3] I am not sure how we moved to a one step voting process from a two
step voting process, but I would have preferred a two step voting
process. That way proposal presenters do get an opportunity to go back
and enhance their proposals and have a second shot at getting their work
included in draft text.
So straddling the voting on proposals between March and May would be
preferable instead of just deciding to do it all in one shot in May.
We could probably discuss this more in next teleconference.
4] As for the comment below, yeah, that's the way it appears.
However instead of "going home" after failure in one meeting, I would
have just liked us to give a greater chance of success by spreading this
across meetings. That way presenters do have another opportunity to
further harmonize/enhance their work after verdict from the working
group, in case they do decide to go for verdict in March.
5] The way things are currently setup the significance of Jan and March
meetings is significantly reduced. Straddling the voting between March
and May would probably make the down selection process a little more
balanced with more opportunity for proposals to be included in draft
text as well.
Best Regards
-Vivek
|-----Original Message-----
|From: owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org] On
|Behalf Of hunter
|Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 12:09 AM
|To: stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
|Cc: Nada Golmie
|Subject: Re: ad hoc group on evaluation criteria: Draft Down Selection
|Process document
|
|Hello Ad-Hoc Group,
|
|According to the Downselect process, no new proposals are allowed, and
no
|proposal that does not reach 75% on its May vote is allowed to be re-
|offered.
|
|Therefore, a direct conclusion from the Downselect decision procedure
is
|that, if no proposal reaches 75%, then we shall simply pack up 802.21
and
|go home.
|
|Is that the sentiment of the group?
|
|Hunter
|
|At 02:35 PM 12/17/2004 -0500, Nada Golmie wrote:
|>Hello Everyone,
|>
|>As agreed upon in our last telecon, here is a draft for the
|>down-selection document #21-04-200 that contains
|>a summary of the down selection timeline and procedures.
|>
|>A heads-up on the agenda for the January 5, 2005 telecon:
|>
|>1) Review and discuss document #21-04-200
|>2) Review and discuss evaluation guidelines document # 21-04-199
|>- update on MIH call flow and scope matrix - Alan Carlton
|>- update on proposal checklist -Vivek Gupta
|>- update on usage scenarios - Reijo Salminen
|>3) Discuss performance characterization and excel spread sheet sent
|on12/15
|>
|>Best wishes and happy holidays!
|>
|>-nada
|>
|>
|>Nada Golmie, Ph.D.
|>Manager, High Speed Network Technologies Group
|>National Institute of Standards and Technology
|>100 Bureau Dr. Stop 8920
|>Gaithersburg, MD 20899
|>Email: nada@nist.gov
|>Phone: (301) 975-4190
|>Fax: (301) 590-0932
|>Web: http://w3.antd.nist.gov
|>
|>
|>
|>