1. Project: IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: [TG3_Evaluations_of_Proposals]
Date Submitted: [19 Sept 2000]
Source: [Tom Siep] Company [Texas Instruments]
Address [12500 TI Blvd, m/s 8723, Dallas, TX , USA]
Voice:[ ], FAX: [ ],
Re: [Original document]
Abstract: [Discussion of Current state of TG3 proposal selection process]
Purpose: [The purpose of this highlight problems and present a set of solutions to aid in the orderly and proper disposition of proposal evaluations.]
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the 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 acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by
September 2000
doc.: IEEE /305r1
September 2000
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

2. IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks™
September 2000
doc.: IEEE /305r1
September 2000
IEEE Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks™
TG3 Evaluations of Proposals
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

3. September 2000
doc.: IEEE /305r1
September 2000
PROBLEM
Objection to current process of elimination of candidate proposals
Criteria continues to be clarified
Presenters have had varying interpretation of criteria, leading to
uneven data representations
voter confusion
Presenters have not had an opportunity to re-present their proposals in the light of clarified criteria
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

4. Objectors Straw poll: presenters, then all attendees
September 2000
Objectors
Straw poll: presenters, then all attendees
Is the current method of elimination of candidate draft standard all of the following:
Fair?
Open?
Process based?
Unbiased?
The best way to get the best candidate?
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

5. Criteria continues to be clarified
September 2000
Criteria continues to be clarified
00110rxx_TG3-Criteria-Definitions.doc
r9 26 June 2000
baseline for last presentation
r10 11 July 2000
Add Pugh matrix comparison mechanism
r11 13 July 2000
Add location awareness
Remove weighting factors
r12 25 August 2000
Add new weightings, based on LB5
r13 Pending as of 19Sept2000
Add informative annex
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

6. Uneven Data Representations
September 2000
Uneven Data Representations
Example
Radiata used .18 micron technologies to calculate power consumption
TI used .13 micron technologies to calculate power consumption
Result
The difference in power consumption may overstate TI’s advantage
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

7. September 2000
Possible outcomes
Presenters do not object, voters are satisfied they have had a fair and complete presentation of the proposals, first eliminated subset goes away
An objection is lodged (with worst outcome)
WG (direction to rework process)
ExCom (direction to issue new CFP)
Standards Association (Withdrawal of PAR)
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

8. Consequences to Not Allowing Re-Presentations
September 2000
Consequences to Not Allowing Re-Presentations
The Standard we produce will be vulnerable to invalidation any time from now to Standards Board approval due to the failure to properly consider minority technical opinions.
This vulnerability is: The entire Standards Process must restart with a new Call For Proposals
This becomes a potential “submarine sabotage” of a completed Standard
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

9. September 2000
Consequences of a CFP
A new CFP restarts the clock and allows new entries into consideration. The net result is that we start over.
If we wish to avoid this consequence, we must change the process
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

10. Plan to Fix the Problem Defer winnowing process until Nov00
September 2000
Plan to Fix the Problem
Defer winnowing process until Nov00
PHY subcommittee to fix criteria
Call for evaluation review
Update evaluations via /telecons
Re-Present proposals at Nov00 meeting
Convene a subcommittee to recommend a plan to assure the orderly and fair selection of the candidate Draft Standard.
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

11. September 2000
Motion #1
Move to have TG3 delay the beginning winnowing process for both MAC and PHY until the November 00 meeting, maintaining the goal to have a single MAC and PHY pair at the end of that meeting.
And to have TG3 direct the PHY subcommittee to review and clarify outstanding PHY criteria for approval by the WG by the close of this meeting (Friday)
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

12. September 2000
Motion #2
Move to have TG3 delay the beginning winnowing process for the MAC until the November 00 meeting, maintaining the goal to have a single MAC and PHY pair at the end of that meeting.
And to have TG3 direct the MAC subcommittee to review and clarify outstanding MAC criteria for approval by the WG by the close of this meeting (Friday)
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

13. September 2000
Motion # 3
Move to have TG3 direct the PHY subcommittee to request proposers to identify any changes in evaluations that clarifications engender after those clarifications are completed
Moved: Tom Siep
Second:
Vote: for/against/abstain
Not Presented
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

14. September 2000
doc.: IEEE /305r1
September 2000
Motion #4
Move to have TG3 PHY subcommittee hold teleconferences or face to face meetings to resolve specific requests for change of evaluations, to be completed one week before Nov00 meeting
Moved: Tom Siep
Second:
Vote: for/against/abstain
Not Presented
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

15. September 2000
Motion #5
Move to have TG3 to allocate time at the beginning of Nov00 meeting for re-presentations of each of the remaining proposals.
Moved: Tom Siep
Second:
Vote: for/against/abstain
Not Presented
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

16. September 2000
Motion #6
Move to have TG3 convene a subcommittee to recommend a plan to assure the orderly and fair selection of the candidate Draft Standard.
Moved: Tom Siep
Second:
Vote: for/against/abstain
Not Presented
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

17. September 2000
Backups
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments

18. Changes in Criteria Not Presented
September 2000
doc.: IEEE /305r1
September 2000
Changes in Criteria
The natural consequence of a change (any change) to the criteria is to issue a new Call for Proposals.
Not Presented
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments
Tom Siep, Texas Instruments