1. Proposal for TGac Selection Procedure
July 2008
doc.: IEEE /1021r0
November 2008
Proposal for TGac Selection Procedure
Date:
Authors:
Peter Loc, affiliated with Ralink Technology
Luke Qian etc, Cisco

2. TGn Selection Process – A historic look
July 2008
September 2008
doc.: IEEE /1101r3
doc.: IEEE /1021r0
November 2008
TGn Selection Process – A historic look
TGn formed (Sep 03)
Selection procedure
Adopt Usage Models
Adopt Channel Models
Adopt Functional Requirements
Adopt Comparison Criteria
Call for proposals (May 04)
Submission of proposals
Presentations of proposals (Sep 04 – Jan 05)
Panel discussion
Merging partial proposals
Elimination of un-merged partial proposals
Slide 2
Peter Loc, affiliated with Ralink Technology
Page 2
Luke Qian etc, Cisco
John R. Barr, Motorola, Inc.

3. TGn Selection Process – A historic look
July 2008
September 2008
doc.: IEEE /1101r3
doc.: IEEE /1021r0
November 2008
TGn Selection Process – A historic look
Merging complete proposals
Short presentations (5 minutes/proposal) of complete proposals and elimination vote (proposals with < 25% of the votes are eliminated)
Technical changes on remaining (surviving) proposals
Presentations of remaining proposals (60 minutes/proposal)
If there is only ONE proposal, skip step 16
Rounds of voting to eliminate one proposal at a time until ONE candidate proposal remained (Mar 05)
Slide 3
Peter Loc, affiliated with Ralink Technology
Page 3
Luke Qian etc, Cisco
John R. Barr, Motorola, Inc.

4. TGn Selection Process – A historic look
July 2008
September 2008
doc.: IEEE /1101r3
doc.: IEEE /1021r0
November 2008
TGn Selection Process – A historic look
Confirmation vote on the ONE candidate proposal. No voters are required to provide reasons for voting No to the chair and what would be done to change their vote to Yes. The proposer of the candidate proposal will have an opportunity to respond to the concerns and afterward, a roll call vote will be taken
If the candidate proposal failed to get 75% then repeat step 16) for no more than 3 most voted proposals
First confirmation vote failed (Mar 05)
Second confirmation vote failed (May 05)
The ONE candidate proposal attained 75% of support, the prevailing proposal will be adopted as the initial technical specification of IEEE n without further vote (Jan 06)
Draft 1.0 is prepared and submitted to the task group to answer the following question:“Is Draft 1.0 technically consistent with the initial technical specification?”
If Draft 1.0 got 75% of support, it will be forwarded to the task group for letter ballot (Mar 06)
Draft 1.0 received 6711 editorial and 2808 technical comments
Slide 4
Peter Loc, affiliated with Ralink Technology
Page 4
Luke Qian etc, Cisco
John R. Barr, Motorola, Inc.

5. Observations Most proposals referenced Channel Models
July 2008
September 2008
doc.: IEEE /1101r3
doc.: IEEE /1021r0
November 2008
Observations
Most proposals referenced Channel Models
Few proposals showed compliances to clauses in Usage Models, Functional Requirements or Comparison Criteria
Merged proposals contained compromising features that were not called for in the referenced documents (Usage Models, Functional Requirements or Comparison Criteria)
This resulted in a very large number of comments submitted throughout letter ballots
Slide 5
Peter Loc, affiliated with Ralink Technology
Page 5
Luke Qian etc, Cisco
John R. Barr, Motorola, Inc.

6. July 2008
September 2008
doc.: IEEE /1101r3
doc.: IEEE /1021r0
November 2008
Recommendation
Adopt the n Selection Procedure as shown in document tgn-selection-procedure with the following change:
In step 16), add a rule that all features of submitted proposals must meet appropriate clauses in Functional Requirements or Comparison Criteria or Usage Models before members cast their votes
Slide 6
Peter Loc, affiliated with Ralink Technology
Page 6
Luke Qian etc, Cisco
John R. Barr, Motorola, Inc.

7. Thank You Q&A November 2008 July 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1021r0
Peter Loc, affiliated with Ralink Technology
Luke Qian etc, Cisco