Peretz,
I agree with you, and in 802.16e we also
ran several ad-hocs in parallel with the main meeting, as you described. However,
despite the many midnight sessions, sometimes simply due to sheer numbers, we
could not get through all comments during the formal Working Group session. In
those cases, the WG would appoint a Ballot Resolution Group and authorize interim
comment resolution sessions in between the full WG meetings. I don’t
recall if 802.16d did this, but 802.16e most certainly did – multiple times.
First, I need to take exception to
something David said in his e-mail. He stated: Officially
appointing a core group to resolve comments is definitely not allowed under the
IEEE processes.” That is not correct. The WG has a lot
of latitude as to how it wants to resolve comments. It can resolve them
itself, appoint a ballot resolution group or use some other method. What the
WG must
do as a whole is vote
on those resolutions and the associated draft, but it does not as a whole
have to resolve the comments. 802.11 is an obvious example.
Although not required, in order to give
everyone an equal opportunity to join the Ballot Resolution Group, during the 802.16
WG plenary we would issue an open invite to all members of the WG to
participate in the BRG and establish a list of volunteers willing to do so. Typically,
this would be your “core” group plus at least one TG or WG officer
plus the editor. I don’t recall it ever being more than 20 people - and
that was when we had some 300 WG members. The WG approved the list of
volunteers and authorized the interim comment resolution session. Once this
group is established, there is absolutely no requirement that their meetings be
open to the entire WG; in fact, the smaller the group the better, so long as
they have or have access to the necessary expertise.
The charter of the Ballot Resolution Group
was to resolve comments and issue an updated version of the document
incorporating those resolutions, if necessary. They did not have authority to officially
approve the comment resolutions or the new version of the document; only the WG
(or Sponsor Ballot group) can do that. These comment resolutions and the updated
document were then posted on the WG web site and, typically, we would do a WG recirc.
At the following formal WG meeting, these comment resolutions, as well as any
new comments and proposed resolutions on the updated draft were then reviewed, accepted,
modified, and voted on by the full WG.
I am not saying 802.21 should adopt this
approach - that is up to the Working Group – but the option is there, if
needed.
Brian
From: Peretz Feder
[mailto:pfeder@lucent.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 3:08
AM
To: Kiernan, Brian G.
Cc: David Hunter;
Michael.G.Williams@nokia.com; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802.21] Comment
resolution effort
Brian:
These 802.16 ad-hoc groups ran during the formal IEEE meetings and all voting
members had an opportunity to join at will and vote/contribute/argue/influence.
If we elect to hold additional interim meetings in between IEEE formal
meeting, the opportunity to join the ad-hoc will be very limited.
Peretz
On 5/10/2006 4:02 PM, Kiernan, Brian G. wrote:
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
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