1. 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 apply to TG votes, but highly are recommended Pre-Ballot Tasks Balloting Post-Ballot Tasks

2. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 2 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

3. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 3 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

4. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 4 Ballot Instructions ALL 802.15 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

5. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 5 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

6. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 6 Voting Options 1)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] 2)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." 3)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." The ballot shall provide three choices:

7. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 7 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)

8. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 8 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” {Approval by WG participants at Orlando}

9. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 9 Balloting The TG SHALL NOT change Draft during a vote –Invalidates vote –If required changes are identified,posting of notation of intent to change is suggested – 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

10. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 10 Post-Ballot Tasks Overview of Process –Status Codes –Flowchart Triage of comments Processing comments Preliminary resolution Draft Response to voter Approval of resolution Application of changes Notification of Rejections/changes

11. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 11 Comment/Response Status Codes 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 Q

12. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 12 Comment Flowchart

13. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 13 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

14. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 14 Processing comments Ad Hoc activity Address Technical comments first Review triage decisions Formulate and document decision

15. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 15 Preliminary resolution TG-level task for “controversial” decisions One issue per slide –Problem Statement –Commenter’s proposal –Tiger team’s recommendation –Rationale for decision

16. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 16 Draft Response to voter Required for rejections Recommended for any descriptor change One letter per voter –Comment as entered –Response from TG

17. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 17 Approval of resolution WG/TG vote (as appropriate) Technical issue (75% approval) Vote format –Plenary –Interim WG With authorization –Letter Ballot

18. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 18 Application of changes Applied by Section Editors Supervised by Lead Editor WG Technical Editor available as an advisor

19. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 19 Notification of Rejections/changes Sent via email Request for change of vote Follow-up to WG/TG on any withdrawals of comments

20. doc.: IEEE 802.15-01/224r3 Submission May 2001 Tom Siep, TMS ConsultantsSlide 20