Re: [RPRWG] Austin Meeting Details / Process
Mike, I would like to see an addition to the agenda. Your objective "-
possible convergence of proposals if none have sufficient support to move
forward" is far weaker than I would have stated it. One reason it is weak
is that we don't have adequate time per the posted agenda, or within the
normal meeting schedule to move the proposals closer together. I propose
that we allot time every evening (Sunday through Thursday Evening), and
Monday morning for the four groups, MAC - MAC Group, TOPO - Topology
Discovery Group, PHYS - Physical Layer Group, and LMGT - Layer Management
Group, to meet. The objective of these meetings would be to develop a
single proposal in each area to bring forward. An early part of that
process will be to move all proposals within the Ad Hoc group closer to each
other. The tenor of the meetings should be collaborative, with all parties
looking for a solution that can go forward and garner a 75% majority of the
votes. I further suggest that each group attempt to appoint someone to act
as a neutral leader to encourage a supportive collaborative effort within
each of the Ad Hoc groups. We will have some time on Wednesday to see how
well the process is working, and to get reports from the Ad Hocs on there
self appraisal of progress and likelihood of reaching their objective (a
single proposal to be brought to the group), and the time frame for meeting
the objective (the November meeting, before the January interim, or by the
end of the January interim). We have an excellent chance to make dramatic
strides in converging our thinking in each of these major areas. One of the
key initiatives at the upcoming meeting should be devoting extensive energy
to making that happen.
All, if you are signed up for any of these groups, please make travel plans
accordingly.
Mannix, as coordinator and collector of the information, please discuss
timing with a number of people in each group and post suggested times for
the Ad Hoc groups to meet.
All, during the first meeting or before, think about who would be a good
impartial leader for each Ad Hoc group to keep discussions positive and
supportive.
Even if one of the proposals on the table garners a 75% majority on Monday,
there is a great deal of work in each of these four areas. Under that
scenario, the Ad Hocs would work on increasing the technical detail and
refining the proposal in each area.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
Chair, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Takefman" <tak@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 12:12 AM
Subject: [RPRWG] Austin Meeting Details / Process
>
> Dear RPPWGers,
>
> Sorry for the delay in getting this out. A reasonable amount
> of thought and research has gone into this process.
>
> The goals of the November meeting are as follows:
> - adminstration
> determination of new voting members
> review of rules for gaining and losing voting rights
> review of rules for voting at the meeting
> - presentation of proposals for the baseline of the standard
> - determination if any proposal has sufficient support to move forward
> (75% technical vote)
> - terms and definitions resolution
> - determine if encapsulating bridging is our preferred method for 802.1D
> or just something we want to try to standardize or something we leave
> for vendors to do in a proprietary manner.
> - meeting with 802.1 to discuss standard transparent bridging and
> possibly encap bridging (Thursday morning)
> - possible convergence of proposals if none have sufficient support to
> move forward
> - other presentations of interest to the WG
>
> If a proposal does garner 75% support it will become the baseline
> proposal and serve as draft 0.0 Given that the jobs of the editors
> to make the draft whole - people need to concentrate on the technical
> aspects of all of the proposals and not get too hung up on editorial
> issues. The focus should be on if the proposal is understandable from
> a technical perspective.
>
> If a proposal does not garner support we need to be aware that we
> have until the end of january to reach concensus on the major
> technical issues and still be on schedule. However, if we can
> reach concensus this meeting we will be in a position to beat our
> schedule.
>
> The rough schedule for the meeting is as follows
>
> Monday Morning
> - the room can be made available to committee work -
> Bob / Khaled please advise.
>
> Monday Afternoon
> - Administrivia
> - Update on Terms and Definitions Ad-Hoc
> - voting on terms and definitions
> - Discussion on Encap Bridging as method for .1D
> VOte to determine if encap bridging should be discussed with .1
> - Vote to formally approve liason to T1X1.5
> - Presentations on Proposals and discussion of same
>
> Monday Night
> - Terms and Definitions Ad-hoc Comment Resolution if needed
> - Possible adhoc on processes for achieving concensus
>
> Tuesday
> - Presentations on Proposals and discussion of same
> - Voting on Proposals for Baseline
> - Determination of need to charter adhocs on "sections of standard"
>
> Tuesday Night
> - Performance Committee if requested
> - Adhoc committees meet
>
> Wednesday
> - Other Presentations
> - Planning of January Meeting
> - Pre-Planning of May Meeting
>
> Thursday
> - Other Presentations
> - Adhoc committee reports - have they made progress?
> - Changes to Proposals (assuming progress in compromise is reached)
> - Discussion on How to Proceed
>
> Friday
> - NO MEETINGS OF 802.17 - Committees and Ad-hocs can request
> room space for meetings.
>
>
>
> Normally requests for slots would have had to have been in next
> monday. Due to the lateness on my part I will accept requests for
> slots up until the 22nd. However, realistically - if there is
> behind the scenes movement on proposals peoples requirements may
> change so I will be considering all presentation slot requests
> even after that date. However, I would appreciate that requests
> come in as early as possible.
>
> Presentations and proposal docs need to be into me by wednesday
> night November 7 so that John can get them posted by the friday.
>
> cheers,
>
> mike
> --
> Michael Takefman tak@xxxxxxxxx
> Manager of Engineering, Cisco Systems
> Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> 2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> voice: 613-271-3399 fax: 613-271-4867