1. 802.11 TGmb Editorial Process
May 2006
doc.: IEEE /0528r0
March 2009
TGmb Editorial Process
Date:
Authors:
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

2. Abstract This document:
March 2009
Abstract
This document:
Describes the current status of the P REVmb drafts
Contains a description of the editorial process proposed for development of the P REVmb drafts
Solicits volunteers for editing and reviewing
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

3. Current status of drafts
March 2009
Current status of drafts
All these drafts are unapproved by absolutely anybody
Drafts are in the members’ area. Incremental redlines are available.
Draft P802.11REVmb_D0.01
Should be technically identical to IEEE STD TM
Had to replace embedded Visio objects with references to Windows Metafile (WMF) versions of the graphics due to a feature of Framemaker combined with Windows XP service pack 3
Draft P802.11REVmb_D0.02
incorporates IEEE STD k-2008
Draft P802.11REVmb_D0.02 Redline Compared to P802.11REVmb_D0.01
Draft P802.11REVmb_D0.03
incorporates IEEE STD r-2008
Draft P802.11REVmb_D0.03 Redline Compared to P802.11REVmb_D0.02
Draft P802.11REVmb_D0.04
incorporates IEEE STD y-2008
Draft P802.11REVmb_D0.04 Redline Compared to P802.11REVmb_D0.03
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

4. Editorial Process Axiom – People make mistakes
March 2009
Editorial Process
Axiom – People make mistakes
Corollololly ** – We should design processes on the assumption that people make mistakes
We’re engineers – so, see flowchart
Documentation should include:
Approved resolutions (numbered comments and motions help track approval),
Editor’s Notes and Status per approved resolution
Changes in the draft are tagged with a reference to comment
Editing defects and Editor’s resolution to them
** This is either a misspeeling, or an iced variant of a Tuscan anise-flavored sweet pastry.
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

5. Editorial process – graphic
March 2009
Editorial process – graphic
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

6. Situations Vacant Editorial Review Panel Editors March 2009
Need: Each implemented resolution should be checked by 2 people who will report any defects (i.e., >= 2 eyeball pairs per comment).
Cost: Depends on volume of approved resolutions. Likely to be several hours per draft per person on the assumption ~8 people sign up.
Qualifications: an eye for detail and an interest in getting the job done right. No additional tools are needed.
Editors
Need: Spread the load of editing and speed up the production of drafts. Reduce the risk of putting all the eggs in one basket. Spread specific editorial knowledge.
Cost: Several days solid work per meeting cycle (either incorporating a portion of a newly published amendment, or hundreds of approved comment resolutions)
Qualifications: Attention to detail. Prior experience with Framemaker, or a willingness to travel a pretty steep learning curve. Willingness to learn and follow IEEE-SA style. Framemaker V7.2 (currently) is required. Willingness to be managed interactively (1 day response).
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

7. So what, I don’t care about 802.11-REVmb?
March 2009
So what, I don’t care about REVmb?
You should. Once approved (in ~2011), this document replaces the current standard. All current-in-progress (e.g. TGac, TGad) amendments at that point will have to change (if necessary) to use this as the new baseline. All future amendments will use this as the new baseline. External users of STD (e.g. WFA) will start using the new standard.
The quality of the standard determines how easily this shift can take place.
You don’t have to attend TGmb meetings to contribute effectively to the editorial panel.
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

8. Example Editorial Review Document
March 2009
Example Editorial Review Document
This is an Excel spreadsheet. Right click / Worksheet object: Open
Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation