LB12 Post Mortem: Analysis of Comment Resolution Process

1. Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [LB12 Post Mortem] Date Submitted: [12 May 2002] Source: [Dr. John R. Barr] Company [Motorola] Address [1303 E. Algonquin Road, Schaumburg, IL 60196 USA] Voice:[+1 847.576.8706], FAX: [+1 847.576.6758], E-Mail:[John.Barr@Motorola.com] Re: [] Abstract: [Working document concerning how TG3 handled comment resolution for LB12] Purpose: [Determine good and bad practices followed during comment resolution of LB12 by TG3 and capture suggestions and any proposed acitons from TG3 on how to handle future letter ballots.] Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P802.15. Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

2. LB12 Post Mortem • LB12 Basic Parameters • Quality of Voter Comments • Comment Resolution Process • Draft Revision Process • TG3 Committee Feedback • Recirculation Ballot Planning Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

3. Basic Parameters • LB12 Dates: • Started – December 7, 2001 • Ended – January 16, 2002 • Initial Results: • For – 49, Against – 22, 69% Approval • Comment Resolution Progress: (1851 total, 554 TRs) • Dallas: 251 TRs resolved (84% Approval) • By St. Louis: 552 TRs resolved • Status in Sydney: • All TR, T and E comments resolved • LB16 selected final ECC mandatory security suite text • D0B released for final editing to get D10 Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

4. Quality of Voter Comments • Varied • Some had complete information: • Comment citing clause, line and text and rationale for the comment • Suggested remedy including drop in text or editing commands • Some only had comment • Some were general issues requiring extensive committee time to prepare and approve proposed resolution Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

5. Comment Resolution Approach • Comment resolution data base used to capture comments and monitor progress of resolution (02055r0-15) • Entire committee addressed comments instead of forming a Ballot Review Committee • Interim and Plenary IEEE 802 meetings (5-50 people) • Ad hoc meeting (16 people) • Tuesday and Thursday conference calls (5-15 people) • Proposed changes to draft recorded in Comment Resolution Working Documents (02075r0-9, 02076r0-3, 02100r0-9, 02129r0-8, etc.) • Security addressed as full replacement with technology selection process ending up in LB16. Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

6. Draft Revision Process • Collect all accepted revisions to D09 in comment resolution working documents (or documents referenced when large) • Assign clause editors to make all editorial changes following St. Louis meeting • Technical editor merging clauses together and applying accepted editorial changes. • Interim drafts (D0A (5/3/2002) and D0B (5/9/2002)) prepared for committee editorial review. • D10 to be prepared following Sydney based on D0B, LB16 security suite text selection, and final review with committee. (One last edit document). Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

7. TG3 Committee Feedbackto Improve Recirculation Process • How can we improve quality of voter comments? • What went well with the LB12 comment resolution process? • What did not work well with the LB12 comment resolution process? • Suggestions for improvement Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

8. How to improve vote comment quality Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

9. What went well with LB12 process? Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

10. What did not work well with LB12 process? Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

11. Suggestions for Improvement Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

12. Recirculation Ballot Planning • 20-day recirculation ballot after Sydney: • Start May 24, 2002 • End June 13 or 14, 2002 • Ad hoc meeting in Vienna, VA • June 18-20, 2002 • Two alternatives for next recirculation: • Prior to Vancouver using a BRC • After Vancouver using existing process Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

13. 10-day Recirculation Prior to Vancouver • Establish a BRC in Sydney with the authority to perform recirculation ballot comment resolution process: • Chaired by James Gilb • 8-10 members proficient in each of the clauses • Must be approved by the task group • Create comment resolution data base between June 13 and June 17 (one day for BRC review) • Resolve comments in BRC during ad hoc June 18-20 • Create recirculation draft and get voter resolution response by June 28. • Recirculation ballot starts June 28 ends July 7 Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola

14. 10-day Recirculation Following Vancouver • Create comment resolution data base between June 13 and June 17 (one day for TG3 review) • Evaluate comments, assign people to address proposed replacement text, resolve as many as possible during June 18-20 ad hoc in Vienna, VA. • Complete comment resolution and obtain approval of TG3 during Vancouver IEEE 802 Plenary meeting July 8-12. • Complete editing of draft, get resolution confirmation from no voters, and issue 10-day recirculation ballot following Vancouver meeting. Dr. John R. Barr, Motorola