IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) January 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r1 January 2003 IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) TG3a Down Selection Subcommitee (SC) Down Selection Process Discussion Ian Gifford, Consultant Ian Gifford, Consultant

January 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r1 January 2003 Contents Down Selection Subcommittee (SC) Work To Date, unfinished business next steps Overview of the process and timelines Selection Process Evaluation Down Selection Ian Gifford, Consultant Ian Gifford, Consultant

Next Steps Committee analysis of scoring – how to organize? January 2003 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 Ian Gifford, Consultant

SC Overview Nov02 to Jan03 The SG3a/TG3a CFP was released 3Dec02 January 2003 SC Overview Nov02 to Jan03 The SG3a/TG3a CFP was released 3Dec02 The TG3a PAR was approved by NesCom/StdsBD on 11Dec02 ConCalls held on 4Dec02 and 11Dec02 and the minutes can be found in –02/491r1 Ian Gifford, Consultant

Session #22/FLL SC - Contributions January 2003 Session #22/FLL SC - Contributions -03/031r0 [03031r0P802-15_TG3a-PHY-Selection-Criteria.doc] Annex A based on SC –02/471r4 -03/041r0, r1 [03041r1P802-15_TG3a-Down-Selection-Voting-Procedure.doc] Based on -02/465r1, -02/487r0 -03/042r0 [03042r0P802-15_TG3a-Down-Selection-Process-Discussion.ppt] Ian Gifford, Consultant

Overview of IEEE Process January 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r1 January 2003 Overview of IEEE Process This chart illustrates the whole standards process in simplified form. Idea: The idea for a standard is usually developed by a group of people, and the responsibility for the idea is assumed by the sponsor. The sponsor is usually a society or an existing standards committee. Project Approval Process: This idea is then transferred onto a form called the Project Authorization Request (PAR) and submitted to the New Standards Committee (NesCom) for approval. Develop draft standard: The draft is then developed and revised by the working group. Ballot draft: When the draft work is finalized, the sponsor forms the balloting group and ballots the standard. Standards Board Approval: After your ballot has achieved consensus, the draft then goes to the Review Committee (RevCom) and the Standards Board for approval. The amount of time from PAR to Board approval is 4 years (an extension can be made if absolutely necessary). Publish Standard: The draft is then edited and formatted by an IEEE Project Editor and published. The standard is valid for 5 years before it must be reaffirmed, revised, or withdrawn. Ian Gifford, Consultant Ian Gifford, Consultant

January 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r1 January 2003 Call for Applications, Intentions, Proposals, and Down Selection Process Legend: CFI = Call For Interest CFA = Call For Applications CFI/CFP = Call For Intent/Call For Proposals Ian Gifford, Consultant Ian Gifford, Consultant

January 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r1 January 2003 The CFI/CFP Process The figure to the right depicts the current state of the TG3a CFP Process thinking. The WG requires a CFI to prepare the agenda. Typically a CFP runs 60-90 days and the CFI is 30 days BEFORE CFP deadline. Ian Gifford, Consultant Ian Gifford, Consultant

Down Selection Procedure, 02/491r1 January 2003 Down Selection Procedure, 02/491r1 After the 4Dec02 ConCall ChuckB decided to create a flow chart based on –02/465r1 (-03/041r1) The steps in the graphic represent paragraphs in the procedure. Ian Gifford, Consultant

Proposed CFP Timeline Nov02 Session #21/Kauai, HI USA January 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r1 January 2003 Proposed CFP Timeline Nov02 Session #21/Kauai, HI USA We approved and then released the CFP on 3Dec02. Jan03 Session #22/Ft Lauderdale, FL USA We are planning that the TG3a approve the docs from the SG3a. Mar03 Session #23/Dallas, TX USA Proposals will be first heard in this Mar03 session. May03 Session #24/Singapore, Singapore If too many proposal for the Mar03 session, this will be the overflow. We should spend part of this session discussing proposals presented, answering technical questions/concerns (i.e. put the diehard engineers in a room and let them verbally duke it out). Spend time on conference calls discussing proposals to let everyone get comfortable (before and after this session). Jul03 Session #25/San Francisco, CA USA Down Selection and Voting will occur here 1st opportunity for automatic quorum after Mar03 presentations Sep03 Session #26/TBA Potential to start the drafting process - proposals for draft improvements should be entertained at this time Nov03 Session #27/Albuquerque, NM USA TG3a drafting process ... Ian Gifford, Consultant Ian Gifford, Consultant

3Dec02 – CFI closes 3Feb03 and CFP closes 3Mar03. January 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r1 SG3a Future Planning January 2003 You are here PAR CFA 2002 CFP 2003 Draft D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D The CFA was released on 11Dec01 and closed on 21Jan02. The CFI/CFP was released on 3Dec02 – CFI closes 3Feb03 and CFP closes 3Mar03. Ian Gifford, Consultant Ian Gifford, Consultant

Ad Hoc Summary and Current Status January 2003 Ad Hoc Summary and Current Status Ian Gifford, Consultant

January 2003 Ad Hoc Summary The ad hoc session was called to order by Ian Gifford, at 7 p.m. No minutes were taken other than the following slides. Attendees: The Ad Hoc Editing Team consisted of: Jim Allen, Steve March, Steve Turner, John Santhoff, Anuj Batra, Rick Roberts, Matt Welborn, Ian Gifford (facilitator), Len Miller, and Gregg Rasor. Thank you! We recessed to the Hotel Bar at 8:30 p.m.  Ian Gifford, Consultant

January 2003 Ad Hoc Status The Ad Hoc committee reviewed the TG3a minutes –03/012r1 and applied all the edits that were referred to the ad hoc Down Selection Subcommittee from the Task Group 3a. Contributions: -03/041r2, Ad Hoc 13Jan03 edits -03/041r3, Post Ad Hoc 14Jan03 edit Ian Gifford, Consultant

Ad Hoc Status (cont.) Open Issues List: January 2003 Ad Hoc Status (cont.) Open Issues List: CFP Presentation order in Mar03? Pick from a hat. Call For Intent (CFI) response to 3Feb03 deadline First In/Last Out i.e., the chronological RSVP date and time is reversed to create the agenda. Panel Sessions? After Initial Proposals (Step 2) Time permitting and that it is mandatory After each Roll Call Vote (Step 7) Time permitting and that it is optional (up to TG Chair) During or at the end of Session #23/Singapore Ian Gifford, Consultant

Ad Hoc Status (cont.) Open Issues List: Voting Format? January 2003 Ad Hoc Status (cont.) Open Issues List: Voting Format? Low Hurdle Vote (Step 3) e.g., TGg see –03/041r3 Elimination Vote (Step 7) e.g., TG3 see –00/373r3 and –00/374r3 Roll Call Vote (Step 9) Jim Allen edits [03041r1P802-15_TG3a-comments - JDA.doc] Note: See JimA or IanG for this source doc. Ian Gifford, Consultant

January 2003 Backup Slides Ian Gifford, Consultant

Down Selection Process January 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r1 January 2003 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 Ian Gifford, Consultant Ian Gifford, Consultant

Evaluation Process Evaluation is Really 2 discussions (or phases) January 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r1 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 Ian Gifford, Consultant

Evaluation Process Options Matrix January 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r1 January 2003 Evaluation Process Options Matrix Criteria Importance Level Mandatory/ Optional ABC Rating Weighted Values Pass/Fail   Pugh Matrix Rating (0-5) Scoring Ian Gifford, Consultant Ian Gifford, Consultant

Criteria Importance Level January 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r1 Evaluation Process January 2003 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 Ian Gifford, Consultant Ian Gifford, Consultant

Criteria Importance Level Results January 2003 Criteria Importance Level Results Ian Gifford, Consultant

Criteria Importance Level Results (cont.) January 2003 Criteria Importance Level Results (cont.) Ian Gifford, Consultant

January 2003 doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/042r1 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 Ian Gifford, Consultant

Down Selection Voting Procedure January 2003 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 Ian Gifford, Consultant

Down Selection Procedure Activity January 2003 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 Ian Gifford, Consultant