doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 1 November Session Supplementary Material Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report Introduction This report provides supplementary material related to attending the November plenary meetings. Refer to the agenda: 11-15/1217r3 November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 2

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report WEDNESDAY November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 3

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report W2.2 Call for Potentially Essential Patents If anyone in this meeting is personally aware of the holder of any patent claims that are potentially essential to implementation of the proposed standard(s) under consideration by this group and that are not already the subject of an Accepted Letter of Assurance: –Either speak up now or –Provide the chair of this group with the identity of the holder(s) of any and all such claims as soon as possible or –Cause an LOA to be submitted November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 4

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report Leaders of Task Groups, Study Groups and Standing Committees (or their nominee) should attend the Thursday CAC at 7:30pm. The purpose of the CAC is: –To prepare the agenda and material for the closing WG plenary –To create room requests for the next session –To advise and support the chair in his responsibilities as an EC member W2.3 – Thursday CAC reminder November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 5

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report At the last meeting, manual counts were taken of the number of people present in the room at the half-way point of each meeting. –As 75% attendance in a meeting is required to claim attendance, everybody claiming attendance should be present at this point The counts recorded from the IMAT attendance system were captures and compared. See the following slides W5.2 - Survey of attendance reporting November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 6

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report W5.2 - Recorded counts from the minutes November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 7

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report W5.2 - Counts from IMAT November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 8

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report W5.2 - Ratio: IMAT/physical (where physical was recorded) November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 9

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report Should we care? Can we ever do anything about it – after all isn’t it just human nature? It is unreasonable to expect a “personal professional” ethic? Should we ask IEEE 802 for guidance? Should we attempt to identify the those abusing the system? W5.2 - How should we respond to this data? November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 10

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report Should the WG chair attempt to take any corrective action in the matter of wrongly-claimed attendance ? –Yes –No –Abstain W5.2 - Straw Poll November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 11

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report The challenges.. Distribution of Standards on DVD doesn’t help those whose laptop doesn’t have a DVD drive (increasing). Cost is ~ $1. Distribution of Standards on a USB drive is expensive - $5, and some companies have an internal policy of disabling access to USB disk drives as a security measure. Distribution of Standards online would need to authenticate that downloads to authenticated & registered users at the meeting, and probably create an audit trail of download vs user. This infrastructure does not exist, and therefore there would be a cost to develop it. And finally – supporting > 1 distribution medium would add to cost and management overhead. W5.7 – Distribution of “Standards Disk” November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 12

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report DVD USB memory stick Authenticated download Some other method not yet invented Don’t have any interest in receiving this information How do you prefer to access an “IEEE 802 Standards Disk”? November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 13

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report FRIDAY November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 14

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report F2.2 Call for Potentially Essential Patents If anyone in this meeting is personally aware of the holder of any patent claims that are potentially essential to implementation of the proposed standard(s) under consideration by this group and that are not already the subject of an Accepted Letter of Assurance: –Either speak up now or –Provide the chair of this group with the identity of the holder(s) of any and all such claims as soon as possible or –Cause an LOA to be submitted November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 15

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report F2.4 Administrative Reminders Next Full WG Session: January st CAC telecon – Dec 14 th at noon ET (-5 weeks) –Initial objectives/agendas should be uploaded as mentor documents (.ppt format) or send to chair (.xls tab format) before the telecon. –Meeting date set to meet 30-day agenda submission deadline. 2 nd CAC telecon – Jan 11 th at noon ET (-1 week) –Snapshots to be send to Dorothy Stanley before this telecon. November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 16

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report F2.5 Letters of Assurance Database is herehere 5 requests for LoA pending: –Texas A&M University System (802.11n,.11ac,.11ad) –Blackberry (802.11ai) –HP (802.11ai) –Microsoft (802.11ai) Was pending in last session: –NTT (patents have expired) –Broadcom (802.11ai) November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 17

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 18 F2.6 Availability of documents- Nov 2015 Publication Draft in TechStreet Draft in Members Area Published in Get 802Get 802? Published by ISO? IEEE P802.11REVmcD4.0 $600 pdfD4.3 IEEE P802.11aiD6.0 $165 pdfD6.1 IEEE P802.11ahD5.0 $302 pdfD5.0 IEEE P802.11akD1.3 IEEE P802.11aqD3.0 IEEE Std af-2013$201 printYes IEEE Std ac-2013$309 printYes IEEE Std ad-2012$371 printYes IEEE Std ae-2012$108 printYes IEEE Std aa-2012$185 printYes IEEE Std $556 printYes ** = request pending

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report F drafts to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 Drafts are sent to ISO during sponsor ballot to solicit comments. –Notice was sent (in October) to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 soliciting comment on P802.11ai D6.0 and P802.11ah D5.0. Approved drafts may also be sent during working group ballot. Any comments received from ISO are processed by the comment resolution committee No comments outstanding November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 19

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report At the last meeting, manual counts were taken of the number of people present in the room at the half-way point of each meeting. –As 75% attendance in a meeting is required to claim attendance, everybody claiming attendance should be present at this point The counts recorded from the IMAT attendance system were captures and compared. See the following slides F6.2 - Survey of attendance reporting November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 20

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report F6.2 - Recorded counts from the minutes November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 21

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report F6.2 - Counts from IMAT November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 22

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report F6.2 - Ratio: IMAT/physical (where physical was recorded) November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 23

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report Should we care? Should we ask IEEE 802 for guidance? Should we try to change IEEE 802 rules? Should we attempt to identify the those abusing the system? How do we define participation? What behaviours are we trying to encourage, and what discourage? How does a tool impede or enable “real work?” F6.2 - How should we respond to this data? November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 24

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report We're wrong about the rules We're wrong about interpretation of the statistics We should be more "collegial". Focus more on getting the work done Trade attendance at plenaries vs missing a ballot Rules are imperfect, and it's clear some are cheating Attendance for registration has its own problems "buying votes". Don't put too much effort into addressing this - fix obvious abuses. Comments from WG members November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 25

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report Discussion is itself borderline offensive. We are here to develop standards. We are giving up time and money. We are the customers. Should completely disconnect voting rights from attendance. It is reasonable that voting membership should be based on attendance. Current requirements are not onerous. But it's an annoyance to record attendance. Perhaps less granular attendance. Should not restrict voting membership to attendees at f2f meetings. Too high a bar. We shouldn't waste time, but only address egregious offense. People are imperfect. November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 26

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report Attendance for picking up your badge. Attendance as a proxy for skill-set / expertise. Not sure this works well. Voting in a WG letter ballot does not allow abstain except for lack of expertise -> excessive "yes" voters. Should support "abstain - don't care". Skewed letter ballot results. Need to keep track of active participation. Some people have difficulty achieving 75% due to other commitments, e.g. ad-hoc meetings. Contributors should be given flexibility. Perhaps a 1 per day recording of attendance. November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 27

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report Recording attendance by TG and slot determines level of participation and interest. Our standards don't get improved by tracking more closely. Coarser granularity good enough for voting status. 2 conflicting requirements for recording: voting status and participation in any particular TG. Should keep recording per slot for participation. Should allow shared attendance in one slot. We currently have a request to IEEE-SA staff to modify tools to track both attendance and presence. Attendance should be by WG, not TG. Presence by TG. Motion: Attendance requirements shall be considered satisfied by attendee who has registered for as primary group, when the badge is picked up. November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 28

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report Direct the WG leadership to investigate the necessary changes in rules and procedures to enable “Attendance requirements shall be considered satisfied by attendee who has registered for as primary group, when the badge is picked up”, and report back to the WG in the January 2016 session. Moved: Knut Odman Seconded: Paul Lambert Result: Passes Motion approved in WG11 November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 29

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report F Wireless Chairs meeting The wireless chairs meeting makes decisions related to the operation of the wireless interim meetings, such as location and cost. The meeting is open to all. If you are interested in these topics, please attend. The wireless chairs meeting takes place at 4:00pm local time on the Sunday of 802 Plenary and 802 Wireless Interim sessions. November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 30

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report F7.2 Next Meeting – LMSC Interim to at Hyatt Regency, Atlanta, GA –IEEE LMSC (802) Interim All LMSC working groups will be present –Meeting Registration and Hotel Registration are open For information and registration links, see November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 31

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report FOR THE EC November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 32

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report At the last meeting, manual counts were taken of the number of people present in the room at the half-way point of each meeting. –As 75% attendance in a meeting is required to claim attendance, everybody claiming attendance should be present at this point The counts recorded from the IMAT attendance system were captures and compared. See the following slides Survey of attendance reporting November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 33

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report F6.2 - Recorded counts from the minutes November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 34

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report Counts from IMAT November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 35

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report Ratio: IMAT/physical (where physical was recorded) November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 36

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report Should we care? Should we ask IEEE 802 for guidance? Should we try to change IEEE 802 rules? Should we attempt to identify the those abusing the system? How do we define participation? What behaviours are we trying to encourage, and what discourage? How does a tool impede or enable “real work?” How should we respond to this data? November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 37

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report We're wrong about the rules We're wrong about interpretation of the statistics We should be more "collegial". Focus more on getting the work done Trade attendance at plenaries vs missing a ballot Rules are imperfect, and it's clear some are cheating Attendance for registration has its own problems "buying votes". Don't put too much effort into addressing this - fix obvious abuses. Comments from WG members November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 38

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report Discussion is itself borderline offensive. We are here to develop standards. We are giving up time and money. We are the customers. Should completely disconnect voting rights from attendance. It is reasonable that voting membership should be based on attendance. Current requirements are not onerous. But it's an annoyance to record attendance. Perhaps less granular attendance. Should not restrict voting membership to attendees at f2f meetings. Too high a bar. We shouldn't waste time, but only address egregious offense. People are imperfect. November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 39

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report Attendance for picking up your badge. Attendance as a proxy for skill-set / expertise. Not sure this works well. Voting in a WG letter ballot does not allow abstain except for lack of expertise -> excessive "yes" voters. Should support "abstain - don't care". Skewed letter ballot results. Need to keep track of active participation. Some people have difficulty achieving 75% due to other commitments, e.g. ad-hoc meetings. Contributors should be given flexibility. Perhaps a 1 per day recording of attendance. November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 40

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report Recording attendance by TG and slot determines level of participation and interest. Our standards don't get improved by tracking more closely. Coarser granularity good enough for voting status. 2 conflicting requirements for recording: voting status and participation in any particular TG. Should keep recording per slot for participation. Should allow shared attendance in one slot. We currently have a request to IEEE-SA staff to modify tools to track both attendance and presence. Attendance should be by WG, not TG. Presence by TG. Motion: Attendance requirements shall be considered satisfied by attendee who has registered for as primary group, when the badge is picked up. November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 41

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report Direct the WG leadership to investigate the necessary changes in rules and procedures to enable “Attendance requirements shall be considered satisfied by attendee who has registered for as primary group, when the badge is picked up”, and report back to the WG in the January 2016 session. Moved: Knut Odman Seconded: Paul Lambert Result: Passes Motion approved in WG11 November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 42

doc.: IEEE /1219r3 Report The WG P&P make it a duty of the WG chair to determine when block voting takes place. OM 6.1 is probably about something else. The issue is that there is no guidance at the WG level as to: –The definition of block voting –How to determine block voting –What actions to take in response So we end up with a situation where the chair is given a clear responsibility, but how to handle it is entirely opaque 4.06 – Clarification on OM 6.1 Voting Guidance with respect to "affiliate block" November 2015 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 43