Re: [RPRWG] Presentations for the Austin Meeting
Siamack,
based on presentation slots requests I believe that there are
three proposals before the WG.
In terms of how to proceed forward with these documents. It is up
to the WG to determine procedure. Most dot groups work on the
method of eliminating proposals one by one. Once down to two
proposals, they see how much support each proposal garners
and go from there.
At the end of the day, when there are two proposals where
neither can garner the required support a compromise is
found.
I think it is important that the writers of all of these
contributions get feedback as to how much support their
documents have of WG members. There are any number of ways
of doing this.
We have November and then January to get to an intial draft.
Ignoring the issues of technical debate / disagreement, I
suspect any of these drafts can form a baseline to start from.
People should be focusing on the technical comments and
not the editorial ones. That is what we get editors to do.
We can potentially get agreement on non-contenious issues and
show significant progress. But at the end of the week, if we
want to hit the January date the authors of the drafts need to
learn from people what compromises are needed to reach a
concensus position.
My view is that people are not voting for the "standard" but
for a baseline document. Then, committees can be formed to
work through the technical details and resolve comments and
flesh out more details and work with the claus editors.
However, this document should spell out some of the major
design decisions that the group wants to follow.
The WG will eventually ballot the draft so there is always
the opportunity for dissent.
see you in Austin,
mike
Siamack Ayandeh wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> I have a couple of questions. How many proposals will there be in front of the working group? Is it two
> or four or perhaps a different number? And what is the procedure and purpose of reviewing these
> documents. Is it to converge them somehow to one proposal before it moves forward similar to the T&D
> document.
>
> Siamack
>
> Mike Takefman wrote:
>
> > Dan,
> >
> > Obviously it is unfortunate that you, and people from EMEA
> > are not able to review the material prior to the meeting.
> >
> > However, this is a democratic organization and you need
> > to get a passing vote to change the proceedures.
> > You are certainly free to make the motion again and I
> > encourage another debate on the topic.
> >
> > With regard to voting at this meeting, I believe it is
> > reasonable to delay voting until later in the week
> > to allow people time to review the documents.
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > mike
> >
> > > "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > Here came my Thursday evening, which is the last day in my working week, and no presentation is
> > > yet available on the Web site for the meeting next week. No material from the different teams that
> > > announced intentions to work on proposals from San Jose until now is available, with the exception
> > > of the T&D team documents. For me, and other people coming from my area this means that we will
> > > not see these materials before Monday morning - with the exception of the presentations of the
> > > people who did the 'wrong thing' and sent their presentations to the whole list.
> > >
> > > I tried to make a motion in a previous meeting about presentations being made available in advance
> > > for review and examination. Unfortunately, the motion did not make it. I will try to make a case
> > > again for providing the material in advance:
> > >
> > > * There is no reason why a serious technical material cannot be made available one week, or at
> > > least three days in advance to a meeting - at least in a preliminary form. (Does anybody
> > > really believe that a material prepared at the last moment, sometimes during the flight to a
> > > meeting can be solid enough for a serious technical standards work?)
> > > * The current system puts an unfair handicap on individuals who already made relatively higher
> > > efforts in traveling from remote locations to attend the IEEE meetings
> > >
> > > The situation seems to me even more serious before this meeting, when we will be required to vote
> > > on some important decisions.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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
--
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