1. TGs Process, February Date: 2006-02-08 Authors: February 2007
doc.: IEEE /0235r1
February 2007
TGs Process, February
Date:
Authors:
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE
Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures < ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

2. February 2007
doc.: IEEE /0235r1
February 2007
Abstract
Slides for discussion of the IEEE TGs process in getting through Working Group Letter Ballot and Beyond.
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

3. Mesh Networking Task Group Process
February 2007
doc.: IEEE /0235r1
February 2007
Mesh Networking Task Group Process
TGs Motto: “Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add but when there is nothing left to take away.”
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

4. Process of Getting to Letter Ballot and Beyond
February 2007
doc.: IEEE /0235r1
February 2007
Process of Getting to Letter Ballot and Beyond
Completed Steps | Future Steps
Adoption of PAR and 5 Criteria
Technical Presentations and Discussions
Specify Any Additional Requirements, Comparison Criteria, or Other Documents
Call For Proposals
Presentation of Proposals
Select from Submitted Complete Proposals to Produce a Draft
Refine Draft
1st Letter Ballot – November 2006 – Fails
Revise Draft – Resolve comments
2nd Letter Ballot – May 2007(?)
Recirculation
Sponsor Ballot – November 2007(?)
Final WG/EC Approval
IEEE SB REVCOM Approval
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

5. Process for Developing Submissions and Comment Resolutions
February 2007
Process for Developing Submissions and Comment Resolutions
You can not have a half way official body in While it is hard to cover all contingencies in a concise statement, there are generally two choices:
TGs can have regular sessions at meetings and can have ad hoc meetings and teleconferences in accordance with the rules with the required prior notice to all members and minutes published afterwards. It can also break into subgroups during such official meetings, the notice and minutes requirements generally being met by the notice and minutes of the TGs meeting.
One or more individual members can develop submissions or comment resolutions. TGs can not, in general, direct how they meet or communicate. They can not claim their submission / group has any special status. Such unofficial work cannot be announced in TGs.
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

6. Process for Refining Draft
February 2007
Process for Refining Draft
Letter Ballot on Draft D1.0 authorized at November 2006 meeting.
Approval rate 48.12%, failed. This is not unusual. Most Drafts fail the first Letter Ballot and some fail two or three times before they pass.
5,703 comments received (including 192 on apparently invalid ballots). 10 more comments added at January meeting.
Task group voted to proceed based on Draft D1.0 and to consider all comments for resolution.
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

7. 3 Cycles of Comments and Resolution
February 2007
3 Cycles of Comments and Resolution
Call for Informal Comments
Comment Resolution
Comment Resolution
WG Letter Ballot / Recirculation
Sponsor Ballot / Recirculation
Comment Resolution
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

8. Advantages/Disadvantages of Passing/Failing Letter Ballot
February 2007
Advantages/Disadvantages of Passing/Failing Letter Ballot
Advantages
Disadvantages
Passing Letter Ballot
You enter “re-circulation” so subsequent votes are 15 days and voters can only add comment each time on parts of the Draft that have changed or been affected by changes.
The voting pool is fixed and no new people joining can vote.
You must resolve every comment by a ¾ vote.
You can only change the draft through the resolution of comments.
Failing Letter Ballot
You are free to make whatever changes in the Draft the task group wants.
Your next Letter Ballot must be at least 30 days and will include everyone in the Working Group at that time and they can comment on any part of the Draft.
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

9. Comments Resolved at London Meeting
February 2007
Comments Resolved at London Meeting
Overall Summary
Total
Open
Closed
%Closed
Editorial Comments:
2,841
646
2,195
77.26%
Technical Comments:
2,872
2,066
806
28.06%
Total Comments:
5,713
2,712
3,001
52.53%
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

10. Schedule Projected at London, England (January) Meeting
February 2007
doc.: IEEE /0235r1
February 2007
Schedule Projected at London, England (January) Meeting
January 2007 (London, England)
Comment Resolution
March 2007 (Orlando, Florida)
May 2007 (Montreal, Quebec)
Comment Resolution, Second Letter Ballot authorized
July 2007 (San Francisco, California)
September 2007 (Waikoloa, Hawai‘i)
First Letter Ballot Re-circulation
November 2007 (Atlanta, Georgia)
Second Letter Ballot Re-circulation
January 2008 (Sydney, New South Wales)
Third Letter Ballot Re-circulation
March 2008 (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Sponsor Ballot Authorization by WG
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

11. Multi-Meeting Process Flow
February 2007
doc.: IEEE /0235r1
February 2007
Multi-Meeting Process Flow
Jan. Meeting London, UK
Mar. Meeting Orlando, Florida
May Meeting Montreal, Quebec
Hillsboro Ad Hoc Meeting
Eindhoven Ad Hoc Meeting
Complete Comment Resolution?
Comment Resolution
Comment Resolution
Comment Resolution and Agenda Telecons
Comment Resolution and Agenda Telecons
Draft D1.02
Draft D1.01
Draft D2.0?
Draft D1.03+
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

12. March – Orlando Meeting Schedule
February 2007
doc.: IEEE /0235r1
February 2007
March – Orlando Meeting Schedule
Hours based on the 13 hours (7 sessions) we will get:
0.5 hr Opening Sessions: Administrivia, Minutes, Agenda, Process
3 hr ad hoc Comment Resolution
8.5 hr Comment Resolution
1 hr Closing Session: Process, Teleconferences/Ad Hocs
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

13. TGs Activity Between Meetings
February 2007
doc.: IEEE /0235r1
February 2007
TGs Activity Between Meetings
TGs Activities Between Meetings Requiring Notice:
One or more face to face ad hoc meetings, requires 30 days notice (P&P clause 3.6.2).
One or multiple Teleconferences, requires 10 days notice, not more often than weekly (P&P clause 3.6.3).
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

14. TGs Activity Between Meetings
February 2007
doc.: IEEE /0235r1
February 2007
TGs Activity Between Meetings
Pre-approved ad hoc 6-8 February in Hillsboro, Oregon, to work on comment resolution.
Pre-approved ad hoc April in Eindhoven, Netherlands, to work on comment resolution.
Teleconferences 5pm Wednesdays Eastern US time for up to 1 ½ hours with the following primary topics:
31 January – ad hoc and teleconferences agenda
14 Feb – General Area comments/issues
21 Feb – Security Area comments/issues
28 Feb – MAC Area comments/issues, March meeting agenda
7 Mar – RFI Area comments/issues, March meeting agenda
21 Mar - ? (After March meeting)
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola

15. References Earlier TGs Process Submissions
February 2007
doc.: IEEE /0235r1
February 2007
References
Earlier TGs Process Submissions
January 2006, 11-07/0059r2, London, England
November 2006, 11-06/1753r2, Dallas Texas
September 2006, 11-06/1386, Melbourne, Australia
July 2006, 11-06/1028r2, San Diego, California
June 2006, 11-06/840r2, Hillsboro, Oregon (ad hoc)
March 2006, 11-06/340r1, Denver, Colorado
January 2006, 11-06/130r1, Waikoloa, Hawai‘i
November 2005, 11-05/1137r1, Vancouver, British Columbia
September 2005, 11-05/878r1, Garden Grove, California
July 2005, 11-05/662r1, San Francisco, California
11-06/328r0, 11-06/329r3, Confirmed Proposal
11-07/23r10, LB#93 Comments Resolution Spreadsheet
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola