RE: Comment resolution effort
David, Peretz, Colleagues
Thank you David for clarifying the intentions. Also to
Peretz for raising the issue of maintaining opportunities for all
WG.
When referring to assembling a core team implicitly or
explicitly, the idea was to essentially call for volunteers from among the
membership to join an ad hoc group... as David illustrates. At any time other
members are welcome to join that group, even after it is proceeding with the
regular work of resolving comments.
To help ensure comments get resolved, and to facilitate
addressing related comments, I suggest we create an "issues" list. The LB and
Reply comments received would be used to generate this issues list. Each comment
would be assigned to an issue on the list.
Once we have this, we can look at forming multiple ad
hoc groups to work at the issue level, if parralel efforts are
desired.
Wrt working until midnight and nourishing themselves to
sustain that work, I commend those who are so
diligent!
Best Regards,
Michael
Michael, Peretz,
Officially appointing a core group to resolve
comments is definitely not allowed under the IEEE processes. All comments
are submissions to the WG, and so their resolutions have to be voted on by the
WG (actually, a quorum of the WG).
Michael is right that the group
discussing the comment resolutions is a (frequently small) subset of the overall
WG. But the usual official way to get this subset together is to hold
teleconferences and/or interim meetings. These meetings are open to all
members -- though I have yet to find one official interim meeting or
teleconference that has a quorum of the WG in it. So the resolutions that
the group proposes will still have to be voted on by the overall WG, but the
vast majority of the work is done by the subgroup.
On the other hand, any
ad-hoc group can form itself and work out any comment resolution proposals that
it wants to forward to the overall WG. And such an ad-hoc group can even
make a call to all of the WG members to join. But such an ad-hoc group
isn't officially constituted by the IEEE.
The most I've seen done
in an official 802 meeting is for the WG or its leaders to suggest that various
ad-hoc groups (say, to work on Section 7, Section 11, etc.) form themselves and
work on comment resolution proposals, to call for leaders of the various ad-hoc
groups, and even to recess during the normal meeting periods for the various
ad-hoc groups to work. If the ad-hoc groups choose to meet at the
same time, this automatically makes for much smaller comment resolution
groups.
For Peretz's midnight meeting, I suggest that it be located in a
bar. At least that way we'd have the feeling that we accomplished a
lot.
Hunter
At 01:07 AM 5/10/2006, Peretz Feder wrote:
Michael, sorry for the slow
response.
I object to the notion of creating a smaller
core group to handle the comment resolution process.
Please lets learn from 802.16d and 802.16e twelve or so
recirculations sessions, where each of these cycles had many more
comments than we have here didn't handle it in the fashion proposed
here. The 802.16d/e comment resolutions sessions/meetings went into the night
(many times midnight) but gave equal opportunity to all the participants to
contribute within the scheduled IEEE sessions.
Peretz
Feder
On 5/5/2006 2:18 PM, Michael G. Williams
wrote:
Colleagues,
Experience
from past IEEE standards shows that a core team of interested and available
group members winds up doing the bulk of comment resolution in some form of
face to face meetings. If the forum for the face to face meetings is the
entire group meeting, then others can monitor the progress but wind up not
contributing as much.
Once
the core group is assembled either explicitly or implicitly, it tends to
define a schedule of its own to press forward with the difficult work of
comment resolution. It is typically in the WG's best interest to support the
core team in doing so. This work often involves contacting the commenter in
real time (over the phone if they are not present) to discuss their comments
and proposed resolutions. (As an aside, in sponsor ballot many of the
commenters would not be attending the comment resolution
meetings)
If we decide the
core team is only authorized to work in the context of the WG meeting, or if
the WG meeting is to be devoted to comment resolution, the approach I've
seen that works fastest is to partition the core team. Each sub-group works
on an area of functionality (or other way of organizing the chunk of
comments to be addressed) and develops resolutions in parallel.The
resolutions are then confirmed as acceptable to the commenter offline (but
during the meeting) and the agreed resolution *briefly* presented to the WG.
The point is that the approval/review of the entire WG (including the
monitoring folks) isn't needed to resolve the comment, as long as the
commenter is satisfied with the resolution. Then the recirc allows full
review and subsequent comment.
It would be good to build some consensus around these issues in
advance of the Florida meeting. It will save time on process discussions, so
we can focus on the standard content.
Best
Regards,
Michael
From: ext Gupta, Vivek G [ mailto:vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM]
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 10:24 AM
To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject:
Re: Telecon May 04
From: NJEDJOU
Eric RD-RESA-REN [
mailto:eric.njedjou@francetelecom.com]
Sent: Friday, May 05,
2006 8:21 AM
To: Gupta, Vivek G; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject:
RE: Telecon May 04
Thanx Vivek for providing a summary of the comments. I guess your
intent was to capture comments you deem are absolutely to be dealt with
during the Jacksonville meeting?
[Vivek G Gupta]
No, the intent was just to provide the summary. The comments I
tried to highlight were in my view the ones that could take up a lot of
discussion time and hence wanted to encourage folks to submit Reply
comments.
More generally, could
we address technical binding comments in priority inJacksonville and let
other for telecons? The intent behind would be to avoid the need of a June
or August physical meeting if possible
[Vivek G Gupta]
We can try to prioritize Technical Binding comments though we
have to resolve all comments sooner or later. Teleconferences have generally
not turned out to be a good way to resolve things and achieve consensus.
Also we do have a large number of comments to resolve.
A F2F ad hoc may be
the best way to tackle this.
Adressing comments on
a linear base generally does not prove efficient.
Regards
Eric
De : stds-802-21@ieee.org [
mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] De la part de Gupta, Vivek
G
Envoyé : jeudi 4 mai 2006 14:42
À : STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Objet
: RE: Telecon May 04
Please refer to
21-06-0655-00-0000-LB1_Comment_Summary.ppt in May 2006 folder on 802.21 web
site for further information for today’s telecon.
Best
Regards
-Vivek
From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [
mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Gupta, Vivek
G
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 6:30 PM
To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject:
Telecon May 04
Last teleconference
before May meeting:
Thursday
May 04, 9 AM EST
Phone:
916-356-2663, Bridge: 1, Passcode: 3765295
Agenda:
- Comment Résolution
Process (60 minutes)
Best
Regards
-Vivek