Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

TG3 Review Procedure Proposal

Published byIndra Chandra Modified over 6 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "TG3 Review Procedure Proposal"— Presentation transcript:

1 TG3 Review Procedure Proposal
May 2001 doc.: IEEE r1 May 2001 TG3 Review Procedure Proposal NOTE: All of these recommendations do not apply to TG votes, but highly are recommended Pre-Ballot Tasks Balloting Post-Ballot Tasks Tom Siep, TMS Consultants Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

2 Pre-Ballot Tasks Ballot timeframe Ballot Package
May 2001 Pre-Ballot Tasks Ballot timeframe Schedule backwards from desired processing event Get specific TG or WG pre-approval for further action if processing event is not plenary Ballot Package Draft Instructions Voter comment sheet Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

3 Ballot Draft Issued in PDF Line numbers on all pages
May 2001 Ballot Draft Issued in PDF Change Bar version between this version and the previously balloted version Clean version Instructions used by editor to create this version from the last voted version Line numbers on all pages Available on website, password protected All known issues identified Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

4 Ballot Instructions ALL 802.15 Letter Ballots are electronic Dates
May 2001 Ballot Instructions ALL Letter Ballots are electronic Dates Start End (including time/time zone) Contact information for ballot return and ACK Type of Ballot Voting Options Comment Types Comment/Response Status Codes Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

5 May 2001 Type of Ballot Technical – The function of the protocol is changed as the result of the affirmation of the ballot Procedural – Passage of the ballot has no impact on the design of interoperable devices Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

6 Voting Options The ballot shall provide three choices:
May 2001 Voting Options Approve (Affirmative). This vote may be accompanied by comments suggesting corrections and improvements. Action on such comments is left to the discretion of the Sponsor. [sponsor = WG = TG] Do Not Approve (Negative). This vote shall be accompanied by specific reasons in sufficient detail so that the specific wording of the changes that will cause the negative voter to change his or her vote to "approve" can readily be determined. The Sponsor shall obtain written confirmation from each voter that indicates concurrence with any change of his or her vote. Written confirmation can be by letter, fax, or electronic mail. In the absence of reasons for a negative vote, the ballot shall, after a follow-up inquiry, be classified as "no response." Abstain. This category is provided to allow for ballot returns from members who do not wish to review the document because of conflict of interest, lack of expertise, or other reasons. A reason shall be given for this vote; otherwise, the ballot shall be classified as "no response." Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

7 Comment Types (1 of 2) Was Type
May 2001 Comment Types (1 of 2) Was Type Technical (T) – would cause improper implementation technical (t) – error in fact, would not cause improper implementation Editorial (E) – language used is unclear or misleading such that it may cause an improper implementation editorial (e) – grammatical error not likely to cause improper implementation Required resolution (Y or N) Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

8 Comment Types (2 of 2) Suggest
May 2001 Comment Types (2 of 2) Suggest Technical Required (TR) – Functional error that must be addressed for approval of Draft example: “all frames must be zero length” Technical (T) – Non-critical functional error example: “hex value is 0x10 (seventeen decimal)” Editorial Required (ER) – Lack of clarity of text likely to cause improper implementation and must be addressed for approval of Draft example: “A frame must be discarded subsequently” Editorial (E) – Non-critical grammatical or spelling error example: “A example is provided” Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

9 Balloting SHALL NOT change Draft during a vote
May 2001 Balloting SHALL NOT change Draft during a vote Invalidates vote If required changes are identified,posting of notation of intent to change – this means another ballot will be required Make sure chair (WG or TG) pings voters periodically Requires 50% voters participation Abstentions count towards participation 75% approval required for Technical issues Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

10 Post-Ballot Tasks Triage of comments Processing comments
May 2001 Post-Ballot Tasks Triage of comments Processing comments Preliminary resolution Draft Response to voter Approval of resolution Application of changes Notification of Rejections/changes Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

11 Comment/Response Status Codes
May 2001 doc.: IEEE r1 May 2001 Comment/Response Status Codes Q Comment Status X/received D/dispatched for consideration A/accepted R/rejected Q/questioned Response Status O/open W/written C/closed U/unstatisfied Z/withdrawn Q Tom Siep, TMS Consultants Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

12 Comment Flowchart (1 of 3)
May 2001 Comment Flowchart (1 of 3) Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

13 Comment Flowchart (2 of 3)
May 2001 Comment Flowchart (2 of 3) Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

14 Comment Flowchart (3 of 3)
May 2001 Comment Flowchart (3 of 3) Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

15 Triage of Comments Combine all comments into a single file
May 2001 Triage of Comments Combine all comments into a single file Decide if there is sufficient information in each comment to identify target of that comment Decide if comment is classified appropriately Divide ballots into logical groups Form “tiger teams” to address comments Charge tiger team to complete processing by a definite date Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

16 Processing comments Ad Hoc activity Address Technical comments first
May 2001 Processing comments Ad Hoc activity Address Technical comments first Review triage decisions Formulate and document decision Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

17 Preliminary resolution
May 2001 Preliminary resolution TG-level task for “controversial” decisions One issue per slide Problem Statement Commenter’s proposal Tiger team’s recommendation Rationale for decision Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

18 Draft Response to voter
May 2001 Draft Response to voter Required for rejections Recommended for any descriptor change One letter per voter Comment as entered Response from TG Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

19 Approval of resolution
May 2001 Approval of resolution WG/TG vote (as appropriate) Technical issue (75% approval) Vote format Plenary Interim WG With authorization Letter Ballot Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

20 Application of changes
May 2001 Application of changes Applied by Section Editors Supervised by Lead Editor WG Technical Editor available as an advisor Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

21 Notification of Rejections/changes
May 2001 Notification of Rejections/changes Sent via Request for change of vote Follow-up to WG/TG on any withdrawals of comments Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

22 May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

Download ppt "TG3 Review Procedure Proposal"

Similar presentations

Doc.: IEEE 802.15-07-0656-00-wng0 Submission November, 2013 Pat Kinney, Kinney ConsultingSlide 1 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal.

Doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission November, 2013 Pat Kinney, Kinney ConsultingSlide 1 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal.
IEEE P1850 IEEE-SA Sponsor Ballot Primer 5 April 2005 Presented by Andy Ickowicz & Noelle Humenick IEEE Standards Activities.

IEEE P1850 IEEE-SA Sponsor Ballot Primer 5 April 2005 Presented by Andy Ickowicz & Noelle Humenick IEEE Standards Activities.
THE STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STEP 1 PUBLIC AND COMMITTEE PROPOSAL STAGE PUBLIC AND COMMITTEE PROPOSAL CLOSING DATE FIRST TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING.

THE STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STEP 1 PUBLIC AND COMMITTEE PROPOSAL STAGE PUBLIC AND COMMITTEE PROPOSAL CLOSING DATE FIRST TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING.
802.20 EC Closing Slides and Motions November 2009 Atlanta, GA.

EC Closing Slides and Motions November 2009 Atlanta, GA.
Page 1Version 2.1 Request for conditional approval Information required to support request for conditional approval to forward a draft standard IEEE 802.

Page 1Version 2.1 Request for conditional approval Information required to support request for conditional approval to forward a draft standard IEEE 802.
802.11 Editor’s Guideline July 2006 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 1 802-11 Editor’s Guideline Version 1.1 Terry Cole, AMD 802.11 WG Technical Editor & Simon Barber,

Editor’s Guideline July 2006 Terry Cole, AMDSlide Editor’s Guideline Version 1.1 Terry Cole, AMD WG Technical Editor & Simon Barber,
Doc.: IEEE 802.15- Submission March 2004 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultingSlide 1 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

Doc.: IEEE Submission March 2004 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultingSlide 1 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Doc.: IEEE 802.22-06/0240r1 Submission November 2006 Carl R. Stevenson, WK3C Wireless LLCSlide 1 IEEE 802.22 WG Opening Report – November 2006 IEEE P802.22.

Doc.: IEEE /0240r1 Submission November 2006 Carl R. Stevenson, WK3C Wireless LLCSlide 1 IEEE WG Opening Report – November 2006 IEEE P
Doc.: IEEE 802.15-02223r1 Submission May 12, 2002 Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

Doc.: IEEE r1 Submission May 12, 2002 Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/0281r1 Submission James D. Allen (Appairent Technologies, Inc.) Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks.

Doc.: IEEE /0281r1 Submission James D. Allen (Appairent Technologies, Inc.) Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks.
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide 1 802.11 TGn Editor Report July 2008 Date: 2008-07-09 Authors:

Doc.: IEEE /0792r0 Submission July 2008 Adrian Stephens, Intel CorporationSlide TGn Editor Report July 2008 Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 1 TG3 Review Procedure Proposal NOTE: All of these recommendations do not.

Doc.: IEEE /224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 1 TG3 Review Procedure Proposal NOTE: All of these recommendations do not.
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/xxxxr0 Submission July 2007 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 1 802.11 Common Editorial Comment Resolution Process Date: 2007-06-29 Authors:

Doc.: IEEE /xxxxr0 Submission July 2007 Terry Cole, AMDSlide Common Editorial Comment Resolution Process Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE 802.19-06/0010r0 Submission March 2006 Steve Shellhammer, QualcommSlide 1 Overview of the 802.19 TAG Notice: This document has been prepared.

Doc.: IEEE /0010r0 Submission March 2006 Steve Shellhammer, QualcommSlide 1 Overview of the TAG Notice: This document has been prepared.
Doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/462r1 Submission May 2001 Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 1 Project: IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

Doc.: IEEE /462r1 Submission May 2001 Ian Gifford, ConsultantSlide 1 Project: IEEE Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Minutes Document March 2006 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 1 802-11 Editor’s Best Practices Terry Cole, AMD 802.11 WG Technical Editor & Simon Barber, Devicescape.

Minutes Document March 2006 Terry Cole, AMDSlide Editor’s Best Practices Terry Cole, AMD WG Technical Editor & Simon Barber, Devicescape.
How to change a Sponsor ballot vote in myProject Sponsor Ballot – Vote Change Updated : 2 September 2011.

How to change a Sponsor ballot vote in myProject Sponsor Ballot – Vote Change Updated : 2 September 2011.
Doc.: IEEE 802.22-06/0185r0 Submission September 2006 Carl R. Stevenson, WK3C Wireless LLCSlide 1 IEEE 802.22 WG Opening Report – September 2006 IEEE P802.22.

Doc.: IEEE /0185r0 Submission September 2006 Carl R. Stevenson, WK3C Wireless LLCSlide 1 IEEE WG Opening Report – September 2006 IEEE P
TGn Editor Report Jan 2009 Date: Authors:

TGn Editor Report Jan 2009 Date: Authors:
Revisions to Codes and Standards

Revisions to Codes and Standards

Similar presentations

Ads by Google