IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) November 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r2 November 2002 IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) SG3a Down Selection Subcommittee Closing Report Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

Contents Down Selection Decision Summary Scoring Discussion November 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r2 November 2002 Contents Down Selection Decision Summary Scoring Discussion Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

Down Selection Process November 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r2 November 2002 Down Selection Process Red = Winner straw poll Options Considered with Straw Poll Results Separate Evaluation/Down Selection Voting: 42 Evaluation is the Down Selection Voting (combined) : 3 Down Selection Voting only: 0 Abstain: 14 Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

Evaluation Process Evaluation is Really 2 discussions (or phases) November 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r2 November 2002 Evaluation Process Evaluation is Really 2 discussions (or phases) Criteria Importance Level Mandatory/Optional ABC A: Mandatory requirement B: Important desired requirement C: A nice to have requirement Weighted values (0 – 10) None Scoring Pass/Fail Pugh Matrix Better (+), Same, Worse (-) than a Baseline Solution Rating (n > 2) Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

Evaluation Process Options Matrix November 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r2 November 2002 Evaluation Process Options Matrix Criteria Importance Level Mandatory/ Optional ABC Rating Weighted Values Pass/Fail   Pugh Matrix Rating (0-5) Scoring Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

Criteria Importance Level November 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r2 Evaluation Process November 2002 Grey = Voted off the straw poll Red = Winner straw poll No Criteria Importance Level Scoring Straw Poll Count 1 Mandatory/Optional Pass/Fail 2 Rating (n >2) 7 3 ABC Rating 4 Rating (n>2) 40 5 Weighted Values Pugh Matrix 6 None 8 9 Rating (0-5) 10 11 Abstain The goal of this straw poll is to gain consensus on the evaluation process from the committee. This selection could possibly happen in one straw poll. Each person should select only one of the above options for each straw poll set. If a tie exists between options, another straw poll will be taken to determine to best option of the remaining selections. 0-5 Low-Medium-High --|-|0|+|++ Red|Yellow|Green Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

Criteria Importance Level Results November 2002 Criteria Importance Level Results Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

Criteria Importance Level Results (cont.) November 2002 Criteria Importance Level Results (cont.) Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

November 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r2 November 2002 Scoring Discussion Red = Winner straw poll Document scoring method in Annex for inclusion in IEEE P802.15-02/105 Alternate PHY Selection Criteria Contribution in 02/271r4, text to be reviewed in January Decisions Extent of Scoring: tabulated information (13) vs. tabulated information with committee analysis (35) vs. abstain (1) Definition of committee analysis activity to be determine by end of January meeting Criteria to Score: only most important (A’s only) vs. all criteria (no objections) Definition of N > 2 Rating How many levels desired: 3 levels (26) vs. 5 levels (23) vs. abstain (4) Levels labeling: + / 0 / - (24) vs. a worded version (21) vs. abstain (3) Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

Down Selection Voting Procedure November 2002 Down Selection Voting Procedure Red = Winner straw poll Options Considered with Straw Poll Results Ranking vote (lowest rank voted off): 2 Vote for desired proposal (lowest # of votes is off): 14 2 staged vote (eliminate low support proposals, vote for desired proposal): 22/32 Two votes per voting member (lowest number off): 18/21 Abstain: 5/5 Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

Down Selection Procedure Activity November 2002 Down Selection Procedure Activity Ad hoc group met Tuesday evening to develop proposed text for sub-committee Sub-committee reached consensus on items 1 & 2 (of 10) – see 02/465r1 for current text Procedure must be set in by the end of January meeting Members are encouraged to review steps 3 – 10 Suggest concall to discuss 3 – 10 to identify areas of concern (12/4 and 12/11 at 11 am CST – host?) Formal editing of this procedure will continue in the January meeting starting at step 3 Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

Next Steps Committee analysis of scoring – how to organize? November 2002 Next Steps Committee analysis of scoring – how to organize? Definition of committee analysis activity to be determine by end of January meeting Email discussion encouraged Review Evaluation Annex text for 02/105 Proposed text is located in 02/471r4 Review in January Down selection Voting Procedure (02/465r1) Members are encouraged to review steps 3 – 10 Suggest concall to discuss 3 – 10 to identify areas of concern (12/4 and 12/11 at 11 am CST – host?) Formal editing of this procedure will continue in the January meeting starting at step 3 Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

Thank you to everyone for driving towards solid decisions!!!! November 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/477r2 November 2002 Thank you to everyone for driving towards solid decisions!!!! Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant