1. IEEE 802.11 TGg Chairs Status Update
January 2002
IEEE TGg Chairs Status Update
Matthew B. Shoemake
IEEE Task Group G Chairperson
January 21, 2002
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

2. Objective of a Study Group
January 2002
Objective of a Study Group
From the LMSC Operating Rules:
The Study Group shall have a defined task with specific output and a specific time frame established within which they are allowed to study the subject. It is expected that the work effort to develop a PAR will originate in a ECSG or WGSG. A Study Group shall report its recommendations, shall have a limited lifetime, and is chartered meeting-to-meeting. After the Study Group recommendation(s) has been accepted by the parent body, the Study Group will be disbanded no later than the end of the next Plenary Session.
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

3. Objective of an 802 Task Group
January 2002
Objective of an 802 Task Group
From Overview and Guide to 802 LMSC
Each project approved within an existing group is assigned a letter, for example 802.1D for MAC Bridges in the High Level Interface WG. A Study Group (SG) is formed when a new area is first investigated for standardization. The SG can be within an existing WG or TAG, or it can be independent of the WGs. A new project in an existing group is developed by a Task Force [Group], while a new independent project creates a new WG.
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

4. Objectives of an 802 Task Group (2)
January 2002
Objectives of an 802 Task Group (2)
From WG Operating Rules
The function of the Task Group is to produce a draft standard, recommended practice, guideline, supplement, or portion of a draft standard to the WG. These shall be within the scope of the P802 LMSC, the charter of the WG and under an approved PAR as established by the P802 LMSC EC and approved by the IEEE Standards Board. After the publication by the IEEE of the standard, recommended practice or guideline, the function of the TG is complete and its charter expires (see section 3.5).
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

5. History – HRb SG, March 2000 Session
January 2002
History – HRb SG, March 2000 Session
IEEE Working Group passed motion to form Study Group to investigate extension to b
Excerpts from document r1:
Motion: 00/61P27 (198) To authorize an IEEE Study Group to investigate technical extensions that are interoperable with b and that can lead to higher than 20Mbps data rates and other performance improvements to the existing b standard. The group shall present any candidate PARs to in time for those PARs that are approved to appear on the November 00 SEC agenda.
Moved: John Faketselis Second: Chris Heegard Motion Passes 30/0/0
Motion: 00/61P28 (199) To give the assembly at the May 2000 conference authorization to pre-submit the PAR(s) of the just established Study Group (SG2.4GHz) to the July SEC meeting.
Moved: Denis Kuwahara Second: John Kowalski Motion Passes 28/0/0
Matthew Shoemake was nominated as Chair of Study Group (SG-2.4GHz). No other nominations. Approved by acclamation.
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

6. History – HRb SG, May 2000 Session
January 2002
History – HRb SG, May 2000 Session
Excerpts document r1, WG Minutes:
Wednesday
High Rate B Study Group Report – Matthew Shoemake
First meeting this week
Nine papers presented
Work has been done on writing Draft PAR and Five Criteria.
Remaining issues on interoperability and coexistence.
Potential for acceptance of PAR and Five Criteria this week.
Friday
Move to accept the PAR and Five Criteria, documents 00/114r2 and 00/115r3 respectively, and forward the PAR and 5 Criteria to the IEEE 802 Executive Committee for approval.
Moved Matthew Shoemake/Carl Andren
Vote: Motion Passes 14:0:1
Move to empower the HRb SG to continue work through the period of the July Plenary.
Moved Peter Eccelsine/Harry Worstell
Vote: Motion Passes 17:0:0
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

7. History – TGg, July 2000 Session
January 2002
History – TGg, July 2000 Session
From document
On Wednesday July 12th
3.2        Discussion of Key Group Requirements of Selection Process (Doc. 209)
3.2.2            Mark Webster would like to have the ability to merge two proposals. Document will be rewritten to address the possibility of having two proposals merging.
3.2.3            No vote was taken. Requirements of Selection Process will be put up for vote with TGg.
On Thursday July 13th
4.2.2            Selection Process
  i.      No issues with document. Will be submitted to server as (Doc. 209r1)
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

8. History – July, August & September 2000
January 2002
History – July, August & September 2000
July, August and September Conference Calls
Held a series of four conference calls to work on Functional Requirements and Comparison Criteria
September 2000 Session
Officially become Task Group G as our PAR is approved
Adopted an official Selection Procedure 00/209r3
Adopted official Functional Requirements 00/210
Adopted official Comparison Criterion 00/211
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

9. History – November & January 2001
November 2000 Session
At the November 2000 session one of the four submitted proposals was eliminated under the low hurdle round of the Selection Procedure, namely the DQPSK proposal
There were three proposals remaining at that time.
January 2001 Session
Discussions with FCC
Presentation of documents
No votes taken on proposals
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

10. History – March & May 2001 March 2001 Session May 2001 Session
January 2002
History – March & May 2001
March 2001 Session
At the March 2000 Session one of three remaining proposals was eliminated, namely the MBCK proposal (Results in Doc r0.)
May 2001 Session
At may meeting an additional round of voting was conducted under Selection Procedure Step 19. In this round of voting, CCK-OFDM received 58% and PBCC received 42%, thereby eliminating PBCC under Step 19.
Second vote was schedule to vote on CCK-OFDM under Step 19.
Technical selection procedure interpretation was called into question resulting in no vote being taken.
After some debate, the session was adjourned before the end of its scheduled time allocation.
WG passed a resolution directing TGg to hold fair and open debate on the meaning of Selection Procedure Step 19
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

11. IEEE 802.11g Objectives July 2001 Session
January 2002
IEEE g Objectives July 2001 Session
Conducted fair debate on the interpretation of Selection Procedure (00/209r3) Step 19
Result:
The next round of voting, and subsequent rounds of voting, under Step 19 of the TGg Selection Procedure are used to determine support for the remaining proposal.
Voters shall be allowed the following options on the ballot to select the remaining proposal:
a.) “For Proposal” --- indicating support for the proposal in its then current form
b.) “Reject Proposal” --- indicating that the proposal is not acceptable in its current form
c.) “Abstain” --- indicating a non-vote
The level of support is based on the total of “For Proposal” and “Against Proposal” votes, and does not include “Abstain” votes.
Until a level of 75% has been attained for the final proposal - indicating its formal selection - between ballots, the team making the remaining proposal will be allowed to modify that proposal.
Should the remaining proposal fail to attain 33 1/3% support on any vote, the rounds of voting will terminate, the selection procedure will have been completed, the remaining proposal will be eliminated, and the body will then determine what happens next.
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

12. IEEE 802.11g Objectives September 2001 Session
January 2002
IEEE g Objectives September 2001 Session
Cancelled
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

13. January 2002
November 2001 Session
Enabled first draft of the IEEE g, namely draft 1.0
Selected editor of g, Carl Andren
Between November 2001 and January 2002 session, draft was updated with editorial changes to draft 1.1
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

14. January 2002 Objectives Presentation of general submissions
Presentation related to the draft standard
Motions related to the draft standard
Coordination with Radio Regulatory
Motion to issue first g letter ballot
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

15. January 2002 Strategy Monday, January 21, 2001
Set agenda
Presentation of submissions
Tuesday, January 22, 2001
Motions to update the g draft
Wednesday, January 23, 2001
Update the draft to version 2.0 based on motions
Thursday, January 24, 2001
Review draft 2.0 changes
Motion to request WG Letter Ballot #31 be issued on topic of IEEE g draft 2.0
New business
Joint meeting with Radio Regulatory committee
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

16. Announcements No logos or copyrighted information on submissions
January 2002
Announcements
No logos or copyrighted information on submissions
Please turn off mobile phones (or put them on vibrate mode) while in the meeting
Use the standard MS Word and Powerpoint templates for official submissions
Obtain document numbers from Harry Worstell, the Secretary
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

17. January 2002
Announcements (2)
There is an b-based wireless LAN set up for use by members
The SSID for the WLAN is IEEE
There is also a WayPort network in the hotel, so make sure you use the network with SSID IEEE
There is a DHCP server on the network
The network is connected to the internet via a T1 line
All IEEE documents may be downloaded from the server, venus
Documents may be submitted on venus by placing them in the directory To_Doc_Keeper
The server venus may be access via MS Networking or via HTTP
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

18. Decorum in Meeting Only one member will have the floor at a time
January 2002
Decorum in Meeting
Only one member will have the floor at a time
That member will come forward and use the microphone
When the member is finished, the member should again assume his or her seat as the floor passes back to the chair
Members should be in their seats at all times unless they are assuming the floor or are directly exiting or entering the room
Members speaking from their seats may be called out of order
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson

19. January 2002
Decorum in Meeting (2)
Members repeatedly called out of order may be asked to leave the room
People should act in a civil fashion and members shall not address other members directly
Repeatedly making spurious Points of Order, Points of Information and the like may results in the chair not recognizing the member
Chair calls upon the best nature of the members in working together for the public good to meet the objective of Task Group G
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson