1. doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0377r2 Submission March 2005 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 1 Ballotting Process Improvements Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.11. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.11. Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE 802.11 Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at.http:// ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdfpatcom@ieee.org Date: 2007-03-14 Authors:

2. doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0377r2 Submission March 2005 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 2 The problem If a task group approves significant changes (e.g. resolution of >400 comments) to a draft during a session, it is not possible or advisable for the editor to have an updated draft available for review by the TG and WG members during that session. The existing 802.11 Policies and Procedures allow a 15- day WG procedural ballot to approve going to a 30-day WG technical letter ballot. To meet this timing everybody is forced into “hero” mode –Editing limited to 4 days, working through the weekend –Administration limited to 3 days

3. doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0377r2 Submission March 2005 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 3 Possible letter ballot timing

4. doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0377r2 Submission March 2005 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 4 What can we do to address this? The 15-day ballot is part of LMSC Policies and Procedures (there is no distinction between a recirc ballot and a “procedural ballot”) At the 802 chair’s open house, there was much discussion, but little clear consensus on a solution Two possible solutions: –Allow a 10-day ballot for a ballot that does not affect the content of a draft –Change our balloting procedures to allow the TG chair to determine if the edits have been properly applied, and preauthorize going to ballot in the closing plenary contingent on this determination.

5. doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0377r2 Submission March 2005 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 5 Straw poll 1 Should we attempt to modify the LMSC rules to allow a 10-day ballot for ballots that do not affect the contents of a draft standard? –Yes 110 –No 7 –Abstain 26

6. doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0377r2 Submission March 2005 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 6 Straw poll 2 Should we attempt to modify our rules to allow something like the following strawman sequence (details TBD): – Editing instructions are approved by motion in a TG (e.g. comment resolutions). –The TG determines it wants to ballot the draft after editing instructions are executed by motion. –The TG chair declares the completeness of the draft, given that the editing instructions are incorporated –The WG approves going to letter ballot, contingent on the determination of the TG chair that the editing instructions have been properly applied –The editor does the editing and produces a draft –The TG chair determines if the edits have been properly applied –The TG chair informs the WG chair of this determination and the WG chair starts the ballot if satisified Yes 37 No 13 Abstain 72