doc.: IEEE /0235r0 Submission February 2007 Donald Eastlake 3rd, MotorolaSlide 1 TGs Process, February Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 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 grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at. Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /0235r0 Submission February 2007 Donald Eastlake 3rd, MotorolaSlide 2 Abstract Slides for discussion of the IEEE TGs process in getting through Working Group Letter Ballot and Beyond.

doc.: IEEE /0235r0 Submission February 2007 Donald Eastlake 3rd, MotorolaSlide 3 Mesh Networking Task Group Process TGs Motto: “Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add but when there is nothing left to take away.” Donald E. Eastlake 3 rd

doc.: IEEE /0235r0 Submission February 2007 Donald Eastlake 3rd, MotorolaSlide 4 Process of Getting to Letter Ballot and Beyond Adoption of PAR and 5 Criteria Technical Presentations and Discussions Specify Any Additional Requirements, Comparison Criteria, or Other Documents Call For Proposals Presentation of Proposals Select from Submitted Complete Proposals to Produce a Draft Refine Draft 1 st Letter Ballot – November 2006 – Fails Revise Draft – Resolve comments 2 nd Letter Ballot – May 2007(?) Recirculation Sponsor Ballot – November 2007(?) Recirculation Final WG/EC Approval IEEE SB REVCOM Approval Completed Steps | Future Steps

doc.: IEEE /0235r0 Submission February 2007 Donald Eastlake 3rd, MotorolaSlide 5 Process for Developing Submissions and Comment Resolutions You can not have a half way official body in While it is hard to cover all contingencies in a concise statement, there are generally two choices: 1.TGs can have regular sessions at meetings and can have ad hoc meetings and teleconferences in accordance with the rules with the required prior notice to all members and minutes published afterwards. It can also break into subgroups during such official meetings, the notice and minutes requirements generally being met by the notice and minutes of the TGs meeting. 2.One or more individual members can develop submissions or comment resolutions. TGs can not, in general, direct how they meet or communicate. They can not claim their submission / group has any special status. Such unofficial work cannot be announced in TGs.

doc.: IEEE /0235r0 Submission February 2007 Donald Eastlake 3rd, MotorolaSlide 6 Process for Refining Draft Letter Ballot on Draft D1.0 authorized at November 2006 meeting. Approval rate 48.12%, failed. This is not unusual. Most Drafts fail the first Letter Ballot and some fail two or three times before they pass. 5,703 comments received (including 192 on apparently invalid ballots). 10 more comments added at January meeting. Task group voted to proceed based on Draft D1.0 and to consider all comments for resolution.

doc.: IEEE /0235r0 Submission February 2007 Donald Eastlake 3rd, MotorolaSlide 7 Advantages/Disadvantages of Passing/Failing Letter Ballot AdvantagesDisadvantages Passing Letter Ballot  You enter “re-circulation” so subsequent votes are 15 days and voters can only add comment each time on parts of the Draft that have changed or been affected by changes.  The voting pool is fixed and no new people joining can vote.  You must resolve every comment by a ¾ vote.  You can only change the draft through the resolution of comments. Failing Letter Ballot You are free to make whatever changes in the Draft the task group wants. Your next Letter Ballot must be at least 30 days and will include everyone in the Working Group at that time and they can comment on any part of the Draft.

doc.: IEEE /0235r0 Submission February 2007 Donald Eastlake 3rd, MotorolaSlide 8 Comments Resolved at London Meeting Overall SummaryTotalOpenClosed%Closed Editorial Comments:2, , % Technical Comments:2,8722, % Total Comments:5,7132,7123, %

doc.: IEEE /0235r0 Submission February 2007 Donald Eastlake 3rd, MotorolaSlide 9 3 Cycles of Comments and Resolution Call for Informal Comments Comment Resolution WG Letter Ballot / Recirculation Sponsor Ballot / Recirculation Comment Resolution

doc.: IEEE /0235r0 Submission February 2007 Donald Eastlake 3rd, MotorolaSlide 10 Schedule Projected at London, England (January) Meeting January 2007 (London, England) –Comment Resolution March 2007 (Orlando, Florida) –Comment Resolution May 2007 (Montreal, Quebec) –Comment Resolution, Second Letter Ballot authorized July 2007 (San Francisco, California) –Comment Resolution September 2007 (Waikoloa, Hawai‘i) –First Letter Ballot Re-circulation November 2007 (Atlanta, Georgia) –Second Letter Ballot Re-circulation January 2008 (Sydney, New South Wales) –Third Letter Ballot Re-circulation March 2008 (New Orleans, Louisiana) –Sponsor Ballot Authorization by WG

doc.: IEEE /0235r0 Submission February 2007 Donald Eastlake 3rd, MotorolaSlide 11 Multi-Meeting Process Flow Jan. Meeting London, UK Draft D1.0m Comment Resolution Mar. Meeting Orlando, Florida Draft D1.0n Comment Resolution Comment Resolution and Agenda Telecons Hillsboro Ad Hoc Meeting Draft D2.0 May Meeting Montreal, Quebec Complete Comment Resolution Comment Resolution and Agenda Telecons Eindhoven Ad Hoc Meeting

doc.: IEEE /0235r0 Submission February 2007 Donald Eastlake 3rd, MotorolaSlide 12 March – Orlando Meeting Schedule Hours based on the 13 hours (7 sessions) we will probably get: –0.5 hr Opening Sessions: Administrivia, Minutes, Agenda, Process –3 hr ad hoc Comment Resolution –8.5 hr Comment Resolution –1 hr Closing Session: Process, Teleconferences/Ad Hocs

doc.: IEEE /0235r0 Submission February 2007 Donald Eastlake 3rd, MotorolaSlide 13 TGs Activity Between Meetings TGs Activities Between Meetings Requiring Notice: –One or more face to face ad hoc meetings, requires 30 days notice (P&P clause 3.6.2). –One or multiple Teleconferences, requires 10 days notice, not more often than weekly (P&P clause 3.6.3).

doc.: IEEE /0235r0 Submission February 2007 Donald Eastlake 3rd, MotorolaSlide 14 TGs Activity Between Meetings Pre-approved ad hoc 6-8 February in Hillsboro, Oregon, to work on comment resolution. Pre-approved ad hoc April in Eindhoven, Netherlands, to work on comment resolution. Teleconferences 5pm Wednesdays Eastern US time with primary topic: –31 January – ad hoc and teleconferences agenda –14 Feb – General Area comment resolution –21 Feb – Security Area comment resolution –28 Feb – MAC Area comment resolution, March meeting agenda –7 Mar – RFI Area comment resolution, March meeting agenda –21 Mar - ? (After March meeting)

doc.: IEEE /0235r0 Submission February 2007 Donald Eastlake 3rd, MotorolaSlide 15 References Earlier TGs Process Submissions –January 2006, 11-07/0059r2, London, England –November 2006, 11-06/1753r2, Dallas Texas –September 2006, 11-06/1386, Melbourne, Australia –July 2006, 11-06/1028r2, San Diego, California –June 2006, 11-06/840r2, Hillsboro, Oregon (ad hoc) –March 2006, 11-06/340r1, Denver, Colorado –January 2006, 11-06/130r1, Waikoloa, Hawai‘i –November 2005, 11-05/1137r1, Vancouver, British Columbia –September 2005, 11-05/878r1, Garden Grove, California –July 2005, 11-05/662r1, San Francisco, California 11-06/328r0, 11-06/329r3, Confirmed Proposal 11-07/23r10, LB#93 Comments Resolution Spreadsheet