Avoiding unnecessary delays in the 802.11 WG Letter Ballot process May 2006 doc.: IEEE 802.11-06/0528r0 May 2010 Avoiding unnecessary delays in the 802.11 WG Letter Ballot process Date: 2010-05-12 Authors: Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

May 2010 Introduction In the 802.11 WG Letter ballot process, there are two decision points required to start a recirculation ballot The decision to adopt comment resolutions The decision to start a recirculation letter ballot Both of these happen only at WG sessions This process limits the rate of WG letter ballots to 1 per 2-month session cycle This limitation does not create a problem during most of the letter ballot cycle. But near the end of the ballot cycle, it may introduce months of unnecessary delay. This topic has been discussed in the CAC and with some EC members Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

May 2010 Illustrated timing Consider we’re nearing the end of a project, and are just about to produce D7 for ballot after the July meeting. We only expect to receive a few tens of comments in the next ballot. We resolve these comments by rejecting them all – resulting in no changes to the draft. D7 is recirculated unchanged with these comment resolutions. Using the current process, sponsor ballot starts in Nov. Using the proposed process, sponsor ballot starts in Sept, saving 2 months. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Example – The current process May 2010 Example – The current process Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Example – The proposed process May 2010 Example – The proposed process Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

May 2010 FAQ Are there any external rules describing the WG comment resolution process? No. Not in any of the hierarchy of documents that form our P&P. The best guidance comes “by analogy” from the IEEE-SA OM: “… The Sponsor shall make a reasonable attempt to resolve all Do Not Approve votes that are accompanied by comments …”. There is no description on how the sponsor organizes comment resolution, or decides that comment resolution is complete. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

May 2010 FAQ Are there any external rules describing how a WG recirculation letter ballot is started? The LMSC WG P&P states (9.4): “The working group shall be allowed to conduct votes between meetings at the discretion of the Chair by use of a letter or electronic ballot.” [my emphasis] Stated responsibilities of the WG chair include (6.5.1): “To place issues to a vote by WG members” “To manage balloting of projects” Conclusion: the LMSC rules give the WG chair freedom to start ballots, including WG recirculation letter ballots Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

May 2010 Proposed Process Once a TG has obtained “conditional approval to proceed to sponsor ballot” from the EC, the WG chair may delegate the responsibility for completing comment resolution to a comment resolution committee organized by the TG chair The TG chair organizes comment resolution committee (CRC) meetings (telecons or F2F - with the usual rules about approval and announcement) to resolve comments. These meetings may vote on comment resolutions (802.11 voting members only). The TG chair reports when comment resolution is complete and (if necessary) a new draft is available , the WG chair starts any necessary recirculation ballot Note – TBD additional changes to OM may be required for consistency (e.g. notification & review requirements) Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

May 2010 Next Steps An earlier version of this presentation was discussed & the Straw Poll supported in CAC 14,0,1 Checked with Matthew Sherman (EC member responsisble for rules) that we don’t infringe EC rules, in his opinion There are some details to be worked out about how to provide reasonable notice & review (i.e. an equivalent of the 4-hour rule while in session). If there’s support from this meeting, I will provide a concrete proposal to the next session Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

May 2010 Straw poll Do you support in principle the process shown on slide 8, and agree that the 802.11 OM should be updated to reflect this process? Yes No Abstain Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation