Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802.21] Comment resolution effort



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   

 


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