| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dan, In reviewing the latest version of your Technology Selecton contribution (C802.20-04-72r3) I have a few questions and comments. 1. Is there a relationship between the selection rounds described in 72r3 and the phases described in the evaluation criteria document (chapter 6). For example, do you anticipate that the first down select round after phase 1 or after phase 2 evaluations? 2. It's not clear what proposal compliance to the evaluation criteria document means. 3. The material in "Table 1: Technical Specifications Summary and SRD Compliance" is completely contained in "Table 2: Compliance with the 802.20 Requirements and Evaluation Criteria documents" . Do we really need two tables? Is it correct to interpret Table 2 as stating compliance to the SRD requirement and that the ECD column simply shows what are sections of the evaluation criteria document are associated with that SRD requirement? Everything to the left of the double line should be provided in the Annex of the Technology Selection document and those submitting proposals need add only their compliance and notes. 4. Section 2.3.5 states, "An ad-hoc evaluation team, appointed by the 802.20 working group, shall review all the evaluation technical reports and prepare a comparison report that should rank the performance of the individual proposals in several key categories (TBD)." I don't believe this is a valuable exercise and I have concerns about an subset of the working group performing an official ranking of the different proposals and how that will be interpreted by the rest of the working. Of course, working group members are always free and likely will provide their own commentary on various proposals and so formalizing an ad hoc group seems unneeded. I recommend that this section be removed from the technology selection process. 4. Section 2.3.6 shows "shoulds" as a requirement. "Shoulds" are recommendations and are not requirements for the purposes of evaluating proposals. 5. In section 2.3.9 it states that "(a) Down-selection rounds shall require a working group quorum and may take place in either interim or plenary sessions. The final selection round shall be conducted in a plenary session." Don't the IEEE 802 P&P address this issue adequately? Down selection should be considered technical votes. A quorum is required for votes taken at an any Interim meeting and a quorum is assumed to exist Plenary meetings. The working group can always vote to waive the quorum requirement at interim meetings or can reaffirm at the next Plenary meeting an vote taken at an Interim meeting. So, I don't think this clause is needed and it unnecessarily limits the working groups operational flexibility. 6. In terms of actual voting mechanics for down selection, there are several approaches that are credible. Here are a couple of options, assuming that there are N proposals being considered: a) Each WG member votes for 1 proposal. Any proposal receiving > 75% support is selected (game over!). If none receives > 75%, then, it doesn't seem practical to set a specific bar for getting to the next round. For instance, if there were 4 proposals it is highly possible that none would receive >50% and that the amount of support that each receives could be relatively close to each other (e.g. 20%, 22%, 28% and 30%). There are at least two ways forward ii) the top m proposals totaling > 75% support makes it to the next round. This approach drops the proposal that received 20% support iii) any proposal receiving > 25% support makes it to the next round. This approach drops the two proposals that received 20% and 22%. b) Each WG member assigns proposals a ranking of 1 to N, 1 being the best and N being the worst. The N-1 proposals with the fewest ranking points progress to the next round. (Of course, this works just as well with N being the best, 1 being the worst and forwarding to the next round the proposals the N-1 proposals with the most ranking points.) Those are a few thoughts that come to mind immediately. I may send more comments as I further study the document. Best regards, Joanne
|