1. Proposal for TGad Selection Procedure and Timeline
April 2007
doc.: IEEE /0570r0
July 2009
Proposal for TGad Selection Procedure and Timeline
Date:
Authors:
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

2. July 2009
Introduction
In VHT there was discussion on the selection procedures previously used
call for proposal / down selection procedure used in 11n
SDD procedure used in 16m
TGac chose to use SDD procedure as in 16m
Not yet proven whether with SDD procedure that requires additional documents and ad hocs actually reduces the work time and shortens the TG duration
Best to only experiment with new selection procedure in one task group
Proposal for TGad is to take lessons learned from 11n and improve upon that selection procedure
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

3. Lessons Learned and New Selection Procedure Steps (1/2)
July 2009
Lessons Learned and New Selection Procedure Steps (1/2)
Lesson 1: Provide opportunity to present novel design techniques, concepts, and algorithms prior to call for complete proposals
Allows for new techniques from multiple sources to be incorporated into complete proposals, similar to SDD approach
In 11n partial proposals were presented simultaneously
Step 1 of selection procedure: Call for new techniques (in power point form)
Lesson 2: Complete proposals required to be in draft amendment text format
As in 11n, complete proposals must address all the functional requirements and evaluation methodology requirements
Many of the initial comments in 11n were due to the quick conversion from proposal language to draft text
First letter ballot comment resolution period will be significantly reduced
Step 2 of selection procedure : Call for complete proposals in draft amendment text format
Lesson 3: No special scheduled oral Q & A
In 11n very few meaningful questions were asked during special scheduled Q&A, it was merely used to attack other proposals
Only hold normal question period after presentation
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

4. Lessons Learned and New Selection Procedure Steps (2/2)
July 2009
Lessons Learned and New Selection Procedure Steps (2/2)
Lesson 4: No formal down selection votes
In 11n there were several down selection votes, and the same proposal won each down selection vote
In the end, the proposal still failed the confirmation vote
Step 3: Strawpoll vote on complete proposals to gauge support of proposals
Lesson 5: Merge proposals early in process
The down selection process in 11n took many sessions
In the end, it was necessary to merge the top proposals into a joint proposal to pass the confirmation vote
Step 4: Merger of proposals
If one proposal achieves 75%, hold confirmation vote
If no proposal achieves 75%, “break” for TBD (2-4?) months to allow participants time to work out merger of top proposals
If no merger, go to step 2
Else, step 5
Step 5: confirmation vote
If >= 75%, create draft spec from proposal
If < 75%, go to Step 2
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

5. Timeline July 2009 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Prepare task
Jan
Mar
May
Sep
Nov
Selection Procedure begins
Complete TG docs
New Techniques
complete proposals
TGad Formed
Confirmation Vote
D1.0 spec available
D2.0 spec available
Start Sponsor ballot
RevCom
Standard Published
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Prepare task
group documents
Call for proposals and down selection / merger
Comment resolution
Comment resolution & recirculation ballots
Comment resolution & recirculation ballots
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation