doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson TGg Chairs Guidance on Technical Selection Procedure Matthew B. Shoemake IEEE Task Group G Chairperson July 10, 2001

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Direction from the WG Rules have been consistently stated by the chairperson Must have open and fair debate on meaning of selection procedure Must recognize that procedure is about consensus, not endurance

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Standardization Flow Diagram Study Group Formed PAR and 5 Criteria Drafted PAR and 5 Criteria Approved By WG PAR and 5 Criteria Approved By ExCom PAR Approved By NesCom TG Produces Draft Standard Draft Standard Sent to WG LB Final IEEE Standards Approval Draft Standard Sent to Sponsor Ballot Resolution Of Comments By Task Group Resolution Of Comments By Task Group

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Producing a Draft Standard Procedure for producing draft standard is determined by each individual Task Group Draft must represent a consensus as mandated by requirement of at least 75% support Ultimately support must typically be achieved in the high 90 th percentile to obtain final approval

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Task Group G Procedure to Enable Draft TGg was required to produce its own technical selection procedure The procedure is contained in document r3 TGg reserved the right to change the selection procedure

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Flow Chart of Selection Procedure Individual TG Determines Procedure Define Functional Requirements 1 Define Comparison Criteria 2,3 Call for Proposals 4 Must meet Func. Req. Mergers allowed 7,8 Presentation of Proposals and comparison criteria 9,10 Low Hurdle Vote 13 Technical changes and/or mergers 14,15 Rounds of Elimination Voting 19 Enabled Draft 20 Individual TG Determines Procedure Present Data, Questions and Final Statements 16, 17,18 Questions from Members Final Statements from authors 11,12 Deadline for submission and cut-off data 5,6

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson History of Selection Procedure Procedure was written at July 2000 Session Procedure was approved at September 2000 session Original draft was written by Matthew Shoemake

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson History – Selection Procedure Discussion Excerpts from document , Minutes of July 2000 Session: –On Wednesday July 12 th –3.2Discussion of Key Group Requirements of Selection Process (Doc. 209) –3.2.2Mark Webster would like to have the ability to merge two proposals. Document will be rewritten to address the possibility of having two proposals merging. –3.2.3No vote was taken. Requirements of Selection Process will be put up for vote with TGg. From document –On Thursday July 13 th –4.2.2Selection Process i. No issues with document. Will be submitted to server as (Doc. 209r1)

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson History of a and b There were known problems with the a and b procedure, so TGg attempted to actively correct these issues For example, the procedures did not comply with the 75% approval requirement of 802 LMSC

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Selection Procedure Step 19 Actual text of step 19: Rounds of voting will be held that successively eliminate one candidate proposal at a time. On each round of voting, the candidate proposal that receives the least number of votes shall be eliminated from consideration. (In the event of a tie for the lease number of votes, a separate vote shall be held to select which of the candidates receiving the least votes shall be eliminated in the current round. The other candidate(s) shall remain for the next round.) Between rounds of voting, presenters will again have the opportunity to merger proposals. Should the right to merge proposals be exercised, the comparison matrix will be updated accordingly and the presenter(s) will have the opportunity to present the merged proposal. If a merger occurs, the remaining proposals that did not merge will have the opportunity to present the details of their proposal again. The rounds of voting will continue until only one candidate proposal remains and one candidate proposal obtains 75% or more of the vote. The text for Step 19 did not change through any of revisions after r1

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson WG and TGg Growth There were less than 20 participants when the selection procedure was approved in TGg There were over 170 members voting at the May 2001 session

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson How to Determine the Meaning of Step 19 Can go back to author and ask for intent and logic Can ask other individuals who recall discussion on this topic

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Authors Meaning of Step 19 Step was intended to allow members to provide feedback on several proposals by casting rounds of votes Procedure was intentionally set up to allow consensus by: –Allowing mergers –Allowing authors to change their proposal at any time Procedure was intentionally constructed to eliminate a candidate at each round including the final round where only one proposal remains Intention was that if the last candidate could not achieve 75%, control would explicitly be put back into the hands of the Task Group and the Selection Procedure (doc r3) would be terminated

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Consistency in Interpretation Chair has continually said that selection procedure has a hole in that the selection procedure may be finished and a proposal not have been selected Chair has communicated to candidates that there will be a final vote when one candidate is left: –Reference letter to Colum Caldwell –Reference letter to Heegard and Webster

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Letter to Caldwell On March 1, 2001 Colum Caldwell wrote: 19)Rounds of "proposal that receives the least number of votes shall be eliminated from consideration"... If at the opening of the next meeting only two proposals went forward and a vote takes place then the proposal with the largest number of votes would be the only remaining proposal. This proposal would then seek a 75% vote on a on-going basis. Is this an accurate interpretation? On March 4, 2001 the chair replied: You are correct that if there are only two proposals and one is eliminated, there will be another round of voting to try to get over 75%. However, I believe that clause 19 also says that on every round of voting, one proposal will be eliminated. This prevents indefinite voting. Let me know if I did not clear up all your questions.

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Letter to Heegard and Webster April 30, 2001 Dear Chris and Mark: I am writing to you as the independent IEEE g chairperson. As representatives of the CCK-OFDM proposal and the PBCC proposal to IEEE g, I am contacting you to convey my thoughts on our continued progress. In addition, Stuart J. Kerry, the independent chairperson of IEEE has reviewed this letter and concurs with the statements herein.

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Letter to Heegard and Webster April 30, 2001 (2) As of the March 2001 meeting, the proposals that you have submitted are the only two remaining candidates under the technical Selection Procedure (doc. 00/209r3) that was adopted by IEEE g. This elimination procedure will continue to eliminate proposals one at a time. However, the procedure does allow for mergers and modifications. As you are aware, ultimately the IEEE g Task Group must reach a 75% consensus to enable an official draft of the IEEE g standard. Likewise, it is my job as chairperson to see to it that the body moves forward without undue delay in a fashion that leads the body to such a consensus.

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Letter to Heegard and Webster April 30, 2001 (3) The IEEE Working Group chair and I were particularly pleased to see cooperation and communication between representatives of each of your proposals following our adjournment at the March 2001 session. As compromise is often required in these standardization processes, I would like to thank each of you for this initiative. I would also like to encourage the initiative to continue. I would also like to let you know that, just as the IEEE Working Group chair did at the March 2001 session, I will continue to publicly and privately encourage cooperation that may lead Task Group G to a strong consensus.

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Letter to Heegard and Webster April 30, 2001 (4) If either of you (or preferably both of you jointly) have suggestions that you believe will allow the body to move forward toward the objective of enabling a draft standard for g that will enjoy strong support, I would be more than happy to hear them and figure out a way to work with you inside the rules to move forward constructively. I look forward to working with you at the May 2001 session to move IEEE g forward. Best regards, Matthew B. Shoemake, Ph.D. IEEE Task Group G Chairperson Additional signature: Stuart J. Kerry IEEE Working Group Chairperson

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Fairness Important to be fair to all: –Members of TGg –Current remaining proposal under step 19 CCK-OFDM –Members that have had their proposals eliminated under step 19 MBCK, PBCC –Members that have previously had proposals eliminated DQPSK

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Fairness to Authors of DQPSK, MBCK, and PBCC Must be wary of changing the Selection Procedure in mid-process –Such action could violate the rights of these members

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Fairness to Authors of CCK-OFDM Must provide authors with opportunity to present information related to their proposal Must allow authors the chance to build consensus in the body Must then allow voting on the proposal

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Fairness to Members The majority of members must control the process The members must not be held hostage by the voting process Members must have the ability to voice their opinions and ideas Ultimately the majority of the members will determine the procedure to be followed

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Fairness and Ambiguity If there is and has been general uncertainty and ambiguity about the meaning of the selection procedure, there may be a need to clarify and reset to some point

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Consensus Without strong consensus, IEEE g will be destined for an extended process Consensus is attained via compromise To date, compromises have been offered, but no consensus has been reached The LMSC operating rules were constructed to drive consensus, e.g. 75% rules The g selection procedure was constructed to drive consensus also, e.g. –The 75% rules itself –Mergers are allowed –Modifications are allowed –No forced mergers –Mandatory elimination if 75% is not reach –Mandatory elimination of all candidates even on the last round

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson IEEE 802 Operating Rules Task Groups job is to generate a draft standard by voting with at least 75% of the members in favor Procedure in the Task Group should not subvert this rule by allowing a 50% majority to repeatedly retain only one candidate

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Issue of the Ballot Due to the fact that no ability to dissent from the proposals was offer on the ballots for step 19, we now have a procedural issue The logical progression of the ballot would be to list CCK-OFDM and ABSTAIN, however in previous ballots the abstains were not counted, thus any vote with such a ballot would have predetermined outcome (assuming CCK-OFDM obtains one vote) with no mechanism for dissent. Such a ballot can not be allowed.

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Issue of the Ballot (2) In consultation with numerous other officers, it has been recommended to add a NONE OF THE ABOVE category to the ballots The same consultation has yielded the opinion that this will change step 19, thus step 19 must be executed over again It has also been noted that since the ballots did not include a NONE OF THE ABOVE option, the members may not have had the opportunity to voice their dissent to the options on the ballots

doc.: IEEE /460r0 Submission July 2001 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson Recommendation from the Chair Step 19 shall be execute again by reinstating all three proposals that were in consideration at the beginning of that round. Step 19 shall be execute again with NONE OF THE ABOVE option added to the ballot When only one candidate proposal remains in the rounds of voting, there shall be one and only one additional vote. If the proposal obtains >=75%, the proposal shall be used for generating the first draft proposal. If the proposal obtains <75%, the proposal will also be eliminated, the Selection Procedure will be over, and it will be up to the members at large to determine how to proceed in enabling a draft standard