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.