1. <month year>
Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: [TG3 Selection Process Flow Chart]
Date Submitted: [25 May 2000]
Source: [James D. Allen] Company [Eastman Kodak Co.]
Address [66 Eastman Ave. Rochester, NY ]
Voice:[(716) ], FAX: [(716) ],
Re: [Call for Proposal Evaluation.]
Abstract: [Flow chart of how the criteria will be used to evaluate proposals]
Purpose: [This document communicates the results of TG3 discussions on how to evaluate the proposal submissions.]
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P 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 acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P
<author>, <company>

2. Process Flow Diagram for P802.15.3 Proposals DRAFT
<month year>
Process Flow Diagram for P Proposals DRAFT
<author>, <company>

3. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
<month year>
This process was designed around several concerns expressed by TG participants:
Allow concepts to merge and optimize,
Need to hear all presentations before vote even if materials are available in advance (Q/A sessions)
Need to reduce number of options quickly
Need to use TG3’s joint expertise efficiently
Need to be able to consider new criteria
Need to have a streamlined process compatible with informed voters, short schedules and conference calls
Need to prevent getting lost in the process rather than focused on the goal
<author>, <company>
<author>, <company>

4. <month year> File Submission to TG3 Secretary, Secretary:
Copy to Chair
Secretary:
Assigns Document Number if missing
Verifies Format and Copyright Release
Scans for meeting PAR
Scans for Self Rating Section
Verify slot in July calendar
Notify Alfvin or Gifford for web matrix
Forward to Gifford for posting
Remind Submitter of presentation date/time
and request any missing data
All presentations and support documents are
available before Monday.
Voting Work sheets passed out
One Pugh matrix per submission is passed out
to voters before presentations
This vote is for “first order” ordering submissions
Voter may vote in ordering process only if present for the session
Votes are handed in at end of each session
Weighting is applied in Pugh tool to help separate criteria value
Number One proposal is used as the evaluation Datum (all things rated relative to this proposal)
Submittor Presents at July IEEE Meeting
Voters rate relative (+,same,-) for each criteria during presentation.
Voters to covert self rating details to general Pugh ratings
Forms are passed in at end of each TG3 session and compiled
Presentations are put in order of rating - THEY ARE NO EXCLUSIONS AT THIS TIME
Order will determine evaluation order
Time to hear, think, discuss, evolve is needed prior to first sort vote
Rank order all Presentations
<author>, <company>

5. Conference Call Analysis Cycle
<month year>
Evaluate any proposals to change Criteria
Vote on changes Thursday - has to be during Plenary
Request reassessment of any new criteria by all submitters
Publish Con Call discussion schedule
Criteria Changes
Conference Call Analysis Cycle
Conference Call discussions of all proposals
Focus on filling in matrix, asking questions,
Sequence is in order of first order vote
Pugh “+same-” evaluation will be completed
Evaluate Mac and Phy separate- each containing Systems
sections and combinations or improvements of proposals to encourage
best solutions final proposal
No Mac or Phy exist alone. Phy -only or Mac-only
submissions must be paired for final vote in Sept.
September Meeting
Review matrix and analysis results and vote on acceptance of work.
Vote on which proposals to pursue
1- Use master evaluation document which is the matrix from doc 00110P as the reference.
2- Each voter rates all proposals in order of preference - each proposal is given a number of
their order (first choice is 1, etc)
3- Votes are tallied, results are presented and sanity check done informally
4- Top half stays in, bottom half is excused.
5- Top half has the opportunity to discuss differences to clarify
6- Vote is taken again
<author>, <company>

6. <month year> If preferred solution is not obvious,
Next level of Sort
If preferred solution is not obvious,
1- review details of surviving proposals in more depth
2- discuss impact of decision on events out side of TG3 (not currently a criteria)
3- Refine how number weights are used in the selection matrix
4- Revote
<author>, <company>