1. IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /477r2
November 2002
IEEE Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
SG3a Down Selection Subcommittee Closing Report
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

2. Contents Down Selection Decision Summary Scoring Discussion
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /477r2
November 2002
Contents
Down Selection Decision Summary
Scoring Discussion
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

3. Down Selection Process
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /477r2
November 2002
Down Selection Process
Red = Winner straw poll
Options Considered with Straw Poll Results
Separate Evaluation/Down Selection Voting: 42
Evaluation is the Down Selection Voting (combined) : 3
Down Selection Voting only: 0
Abstain: 14
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

4. Evaluation Process Evaluation is Really 2 discussions (or phases)
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /477r2
November 2002
Evaluation Process
Evaluation is Really 2 discussions (or phases)
Criteria Importance Level
Mandatory/Optional
ABC
A: Mandatory requirement
B: Important desired requirement
C: A nice to have requirement
Weighted values (0 – 10)
None
Scoring
Pass/Fail
Pugh Matrix
Better (+), Same, Worse (-) than a Baseline Solution
Rating (n > 2)
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

5. Evaluation Process Options Matrix
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /477r2
November 2002
Evaluation Process Options Matrix
Criteria Importance Level
Mandatory/
Optional
ABC Rating
Weighted Values
Pass/Fail  
Pugh Matrix
Rating (0-5)
Scoring
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

6. Criteria Importance Level
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /477r2
Evaluation Process
November 2002
Grey = Voted off the straw poll
Red = Winner straw poll No
Criteria Importance Level
Scoring
Straw Poll Count 1
Mandatory/Optional
Pass/Fail 2
Rating (n >2) 7 3
ABC Rating 4
Rating (n>2) 40 5
Weighted Values
Pugh Matrix 6
None 8 9
Rating (0-5) 10 11
Abstain
The goal of this straw poll is to gain consensus on the evaluation process from the committee. This selection could possibly happen in one straw poll. Each person should select only one of the above options for each straw poll set. If a tie exists between options, another straw poll will be taken to determine to best option of the remaining selections.
0-5
Low-Medium-High
--|-|0|+|++
Red|Yellow|Green
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

7. Criteria Importance Level Results
November 2002
Criteria Importance Level Results
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

8. Criteria Importance Level Results (cont.)
November 2002
Criteria Importance Level Results (cont.)
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

9. November 2002
doc.: IEEE /477r2
November 2002
Scoring Discussion
Red = Winner straw poll
Document scoring method in Annex for inclusion in IEEE P /105 Alternate PHY Selection Criteria
Contribution in 02/271r4, text to be reviewed in January
Decisions
Extent of Scoring: tabulated information (13) vs. tabulated information with committee analysis (35) vs. abstain (1)
Definition of committee analysis activity to be determine by end of January meeting
Criteria to Score: only most important (A’s only) vs. all criteria (no objections)
Definition of N > 2 Rating
How many levels desired: 3 levels (26) vs. 5 levels (23) vs. abstain (4)
Levels labeling: + / 0 / - (24) vs. a worded version (21) vs. abstain (3)
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

10. Down Selection Voting Procedure
November 2002
Down Selection Voting Procedure
Red = Winner straw poll
Options Considered with Straw Poll Results
Ranking vote (lowest rank voted off): 2
Vote for desired proposal (lowest # of votes is off): 14
2 staged vote (eliminate low support proposals, vote for desired proposal): 22/32
Two votes per voting member (lowest number off): 18/21
Abstain: 5/5
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

11. Down Selection Procedure Activity
November 2002
Down Selection Procedure Activity
Ad hoc group met Tuesday evening to develop proposed text for sub-committee
Sub-committee reached consensus on items 1 & 2 (of 10) – see 02/465r1 for current text
Procedure must be set in by the end of January meeting
Members are encouraged to review steps 3 – 10
Suggest concall to discuss 3 – 10 to identify areas of concern (12/4 and 12/11 at 11 am CST – host?)
Formal editing of this procedure will continue in the January meeting starting at step 3
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

12. Next Steps Committee analysis of scoring – how to organize?
November 2002
Next Steps
Committee analysis of scoring – how to organize?
Definition of committee analysis activity to be determine by end of January meeting
discussion encouraged
Review Evaluation Annex text for 02/105
Proposed text is located in 02/471r4
Review in January
Down selection Voting Procedure (02/465r1)
Members are encouraged to review steps 3 – 10
Suggest concall to discuss 3 – 10 to identify areas of concern (12/4 and 12/11 at 11 am CST – host?)
Formal editing of this procedure will continue in the January meeting starting at step 3
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant

13. Thank you to everyone for driving towards solid decisions!!!!
November 2002
doc.: IEEE /477r2
November 2002
Thank you to everyone for driving towards solid decisions!!!!
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant