802.11 TGmb Editorial Process May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0 March 2009 802.11 TGmb Editorial Process Date: 2009-02-26 Authors: Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

Abstract This document: March 2009 Abstract This document: Describes the current status of the P802.11-REVmb drafts Contains a description of the editorial process proposed for development of the P802.11-REVmb drafts Solicits volunteers for editing and reviewing Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Current status of drafts March 2009 Current status of drafts All these drafts are unapproved by absolutely anybody Drafts are in the 802.11 members’ area. Incremental redlines are available. Draft P802.11REVmb_D0.01 Should be technically identical to IEEE STD 802.11-2007TM Had to replace embedded Visio objects with references to Windows Metafile (WMF) versions of the graphics due to a feature of Framemaker combined with Windows XP service pack 3 Draft P802.11REVmb_D0.02 incorporates IEEE STD 802.11k-2008 Draft P802.11REVmb_D0.02 Redline Compared to P802.11REVmb_D0.01 Draft P802.11REVmb_D0.03 incorporates IEEE STD 802.11r-2008 Draft P802.11REVmb_D0.03 Redline Compared to P802.11REVmb_D0.02 Draft P802.11REVmb_D0.04 incorporates IEEE STD 802.11y-2008 Draft P802.11REVmb_D0.04 Redline Compared to P802.11REVmb_D0.03 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Editorial Process Axiom – People make mistakes March 2009 Editorial Process Axiom – People make mistakes Corollololly ** – We should design processes on the assumption that people make mistakes We’re engineers – so, see flowchart Documentation should include: Approved resolutions (numbered comments and motions help track approval), Editor’s Notes and Status per approved resolution Changes in the draft are tagged with a reference to comment Editing defects and Editor’s resolution to them ** This is either a misspeeling, or an iced variant of a Tuscan anise-flavored sweet pastry. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Editorial process – graphic March 2009 Editorial process – graphic Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Situations Vacant Editorial Review Panel Editors March 2009 Need: Each implemented resolution should be checked by 2 people who will report any defects (i.e., >= 2 eyeball pairs per comment). Cost: Depends on volume of approved resolutions. Likely to be several hours per draft per person on the assumption ~8 people sign up. Qualifications: an eye for detail and an interest in getting the job done right. No additional tools are needed. Editors Need: Spread the load of editing and speed up the production of drafts. Reduce the risk of putting all the eggs in one basket. Spread 802.11-specific editorial knowledge. Cost: Several days solid work per meeting cycle (either incorporating a portion of a newly published amendment, or hundreds of approved comment resolutions) Qualifications: Attention to detail. Prior experience with Framemaker, or a willingness to travel a pretty steep learning curve. Willingness to learn and follow IEEE-SA style. Framemaker V7.2 (currently) is required. Willingness to be managed interactively (1 day response). Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

So what, I don’t care about 802.11-REVmb? March 2009 So what, I don’t care about 802.11-REVmb? You should. Once approved (in ~2011), this document replaces the current standard. All current-in-progress (e.g. TGac, TGad) amendments at that point will have to change (if necessary) to use this as the new baseline. All future amendments will use this as the new baseline. External users of STD 802.11 (e.g. WFA) will start using the new standard. The quality of the standard determines how easily this shift can take place. You don’t have to attend TGmb meetings to contribute effectively to the editorial panel. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Example Editorial Review Document March 2009 Example Editorial Review Document This is an Excel spreadsheet. Right click / Worksheet object: Open Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation