Re: Process to be Used for Resolving Comments on the Requirements Document
Reza, you have made an excellent suggestion. I support it.
Best regards.
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants
----- Original Message -----
From: reza arefi <reza.arefi@cox.net>
Date: Friday, March 12, 2004 10:15 am
Subject: RE: Process to be Used for Resolving Comments on the Requirements Document
> MessageJoseph, Bob,
> If I remember correctly, there is a restriction in the Robert's
> Rules that
> does not allow a person to speak twice as long as there are other
> people(who have not spoken yet) in the queue. There is also, I
> believe, a limit on
> the total number of times an individual can go back in the queue
> and speak.
> If so, the Rules, that we need to follow and enforce, take care of
> the issue
> of an individual (or group of individuals) dominating the debate
> by going
> back to the queue and repeating their arguments over and over.
>
> If this is enforced, then the debates may end even sooner than 15
> minutes if
> speakers make their remarks brief and to the point. Enforcing a total
> allowed time on a motion or topic just encourages people to be
> brief and not
> waste time. So, my suggestion would be to have the hard limit of
> 15 minutes
> as long as everybody who wishes to speak on the issue have already
> spoken.If there are still people who want to speak for the first
> time after the 15
> minute limit, then the limit can be extended to include only those
> people.Reza
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-mobility@listserv.ieee.org
> [owner-stds-802-mobility@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Joseph
> Cleveland
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 4:53 AM
> To: STDS-802-MOBILITY@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: Process to be Used for Resolving Comments on the
> RequirementsDocument
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am opposed to any attempt to limit discussion on any item to
> 10-15
> minutes. If we have 10 people queued up to speak on an matter,
> then they
> all should be allowed to comment. Otherwise, only 2-3 might have an
> opportunity. Limiting the time is a sure way to get an item voted
> down.
> We might want to consider limiting an individuals time (as in
> the US House
> of Representatives), but not the total time.
>
> Joseph Cleveland
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-mobility@listserv.ieee.org
> [owner-stds-802-mobility@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Robert D.
> Love
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:12 PM
> To: STDS-802-MOBILITY@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Process to be Used for Resolving Comments on the
> RequirementsDocument
>
>
> Based on the last Requirements CG Conference call on 3/4/04 we
> decidedthat we should be going into the meeting understanding the
> process for
> resolving comments and for establishing our Approved Requirements
> DocumentDraft. (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
> Clevelandhave 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
> documentnext week, unless there are requested changes in the
> process that get
> adopted.
>
>
>
> Please study the process. If you have concerns or recommended
> changeswith 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
> presentationsposted 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
> presentedas 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
> groupbelieves 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
> sectionback 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.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Robert D. Love
> President, LAN Connect Consultants
> 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
> Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
> email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
>