Re: Process to be Used for Resolving Comments on the Requirements Document
Joseph, thank you for your suggestion. Let's have a discussion of the best way of (a) allowing the important points of view to be expressed, (b) keeping a small number of participants from eating up too much meeting time with discussions that are better worked offline, (c) limiting the number of times a single speaker talks to a particular issue. I have now seen a few suggestions that all seem to be focused on finding the best way to do this. If we keep these objectives in mind, I believe we can find a process that will achieve consensus agreement.
Best regards.
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants
----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Cleveland <JClevela@sta.samsung.com>
Date: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:19 pm
Subject: RE: Process to be Used for Resolving Comments on the Requirements Document
> Hi All,
>
> Let's make sure that we allow enough time for debate so that the
> salientpoints can be made. Most speakers comments are brief and to
> the point, so I
> don't think we have engaged in filibustering.. On some topics
> there are
> quite a few comments to be made so the time required far exceeds
> 10-15
> minutes. Why not give each speaker only so much (total?) time;
> when that
> time expires they can make no further comments.
>
> Joseph Cleveland
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanne Wilson [joanne@arraycomm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 4:01 PM
> To: STDS-802-MOBILITY@listserv.ieee.org; Gal, Dan (Dan);
> rdlove@NC.RR.COM;JClevela@STA.SAMSUNG.COM
> Subject: RE: Process to be Used for Resolving Comments on the
> RequirementsDocument
>
>
> Greetings,
>
> I understand that there is a desire to have a full discussion of
> topics.However, in most cases
> the salient points in a debate become evident very quickly and
> continueddiscussion brings in
> little new information and only delays progress. While the
> working group
> should not be run like a
> television talk show, we should not allow for "Senate-like"
> filibusters that
> can occur when there
> are no rules that limit debate. Since at the end of a debate
> there is an
> option to remand the topic
> to an ad hoc group, I don't see that limiting debate in the
> plenary session
> limits the ability of the
> working group to reach a consensus (>75%) agreement. Certainly,
> we can
> balance these competing
> objectives and operate in a manner that will ensure that we
> complete the
> Requirements Document
> at this meeting.
>
> Also, one benefit of setting a time limit on the length of
> interventions and
> on the overall debate is
> that it encourages each speaker to be succinct. Enough said.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Joanne
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-mobility@listserv.ieee.org
> [owner-stds-802-mobility@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Gal, Dan
> (Dan)
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 11:36 AM
> To: STDS-802-MOBILITY@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: Process to be Used for Resolving Comments on the
> RequirementsDocument
>
>
>
> Bob,
>
> I support Joseph's view and suggestion. Our meetings should not be
> run like
> a television talk-show with rigid start and end times. The IEEE
> rules and
> procedures encourage open and free discussions. Your suggestions
> seriouslyimpede the free discussion and debate. Joseph has made a
> wise suggestion -
> to limit the time allowed for each speaker (to a reasonable
> amount) and not
> limit the overall time needed for discussion of any topic - and we
> shouldall follow it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert D. Love [rdlove@NC.RR.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 7:46 AM
> To: STDS-802-MOBILITY@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: Process to be Used for Resolving Comments on the
> RequirementsDocument
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> Let me respond to Joseph's comments with two points.
> 1) We need to discuss how to proceed effectively. Perhaps there
> is a better
> way.
> 2) I am proposing what I have seen work very effectively in
> 802.17. One of
> the things that we did when we limited discussion was to limit
> each person
> to a single question, without back and forth dialogue between the
> speakerand the questioner. This allowed many people to get their
> important points
> in. What we found by implementing this process was that we
> eliminated the
> overly long discussions that weren't leading to resolution, and
> therebyended up with more time to cover issues that we could close
> on. Certainly,
> in the early part of the cycle there will be issues we won't close
> on during
> the meeting. Those issues are generally not moved forward by
> protracteddiscussion in front of the whole group. The short
> discussion period allows
> the interested parties to see who is on what sides of the issue,
> so that
> they can get together off-line to bring their viewpoints closer in
> alignment. The process is not smooth or perfect, but it has lead to
> significantly more progress than open unlimited debate.
>
> Let's discuss the process to follow that will enable us to get
> through our
> agenda in our limited time at the meeting, at the beginning of the
> Requirements Document review.
>
> 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 <rdlove@ieee.org> Fax: 208 978-1187
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joseph Cleveland <JClevela@STA.SAMSUNG.COM>
> To: STDS-802-MOBILITY@listserv.ieee.org
> <STDS-802-MOBILITY@listserv.ieee.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 4:52 AM
> 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 Requirements
> Document
>
>
> 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
> resolvingcomments 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
> 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
> 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
> recommendationshould 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).
> Duringthat 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.
> Votingmembers 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
> wordingfor 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 <rdlove@ieee.org> Fax: 208 978-1187
>
>
>
>
>
>