David, Michael, Peretz et al,
This is essentially the way we handled it
in 802.16. We would appoint ad-hoc groups and/or clause editors to work either
on specific subjects like security or specific document sections in order to
generate comment resolutions. Typically, these groups met in parallel with the
main Task Group meeting. Occasionally, the Working Group would appoint a
Ballot Resolution Group, the members of which were selected at the WG meeting, to
resolve comments in between official meetings. This BRG always had at least
one Working Group or Task Group officer who served as Chair.
In all cases, the proposed comment
resolutions coming out of these groups were posted to the 802.16 web site and
ultimately reviewed and voted on by the full Working Group.
Brian
From:
stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of David Hunter
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006
12:48 PM
To: Peretz Feder;
Michael.G.Williams@NOKIA.COM
Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802.21] Comment
resolution effort
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