Process to be Used for Resolving Comments on the Requirements Document

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Based on the last Requirements CG Conference call on 3/4/04 we decided that we should be going into the meeting understanding the process for resolving comments and for establishing our Approved Requirements Document Draft. (It is a draft because it is not final. It is approved, because the text in that document has been approved by 75% of the voting members). I volunteered to write up a process that I successfully used in 802.17 to expedite the process of developing our Approved Requirements Document Draft. Attached is that process. John Humbert, Todd Chauvin, and Joseph Cleveland have already reviewed it. They still have some concerns and I invite you to express yours. However, this should be close the process that John Humbert will be using to develop the WG Approved draft of the requirements document next week, unless there are requested changes in the process that get adopted.

Please study the process. If you have concerns or recommended changes with the process, please post your concerns to the 802.20 reflector. At the beginning of the review of the requirements document we will have a motion to accept this process for issue resolution.

The Requirement document will be reviewed one section at a time. John Humbert will run the sessions. A second person will “drive the projector” showing the requirements document and making any changes that the WG wants. A third person will “drive a second projector” for showing motions for approving sections of the requirements document.

For each section, presentations will be given based on presentations posted to our web site as contributions for this meeting, and based on Ad Hoc work done either at night or during breaks to resolve issues.

A presentation of the section led by the editor will end with one or more recommendations as to what that section should say. Each recommendation should have a mover and a seconder. The recommendations will be shown on the screen being run by the person displaying the motions

A time-limited discussion will ensue (probably 10 to 15 minutes). During that time additional proposed resolutions may be developed, and friendly amendments may be made. Non-friendly amendments can be presented as alternative solutions. When either the allotted time runs out or there is no more discussion, the working group will vote on the motions. Voting members may vote for as many solutions as they are willing to support (sometimes called Chicago-style voting, i.e. vote early, vote often). If no motions get 75% approval then there will be a motion asking if the group believes that we need to work further on this section to include technical requirements here. If this motion fails to gain 75% approval, then the section is dropped from the requirements document. If it passes, the section title remains and the editor is charged with bringing this section back to an AdHoc group, or to the CG for further consideration. If a single motion gets 75% approval, that resolution gets incorporated into the Approved Requirements Document Draft. If multiple resolutions get 75% approval, there is a second vote and the proposal getting the most votes is incorporated into the Approved Requirements Documents Draft. Since all the choices being voted on already have 75% approval, the selection from among the choices need only get a plurality greater than the other choices to be adopted.

After all sections have been reviewed and voted on the Document Editor will present his recommendations for how to proceed

NOTE TO ALL INTERESTED: If you have specific ideas as to the best wording for a section, please develop the exact wording you want and have it available at the earliest possible opportunity. With the wording in hand, it will be relatively easy to get those words where they can be studied and voted on.

Thank you.