1. IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
January 2003
doc.: IEEE /042r1
January 2003
IEEE Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
TG3a Down Selection Subcommitee (SC)
Down Selection Process Discussion
Ian Gifford, Consultant
Ian Gifford, Consultant

2. January 2003
doc.: IEEE /042r1
January 2003
Contents
Down Selection Subcommittee (SC) Work To Date, unfinished business next steps
Overview of the process and timelines
Selection Process
Evaluation
Down Selection
Ian Gifford, Consultant
Ian Gifford, Consultant

3. Next Steps Committee analysis of scoring – how to organize?
January 2003
Next Steps
Committee analysis of scoring – how to organize?
Definition of committee analysis activity to be determine by end of January meeting
discussion encouraged
Review Evaluation Annex text for 02/105
Proposed text is located in 02/471r4
Review in January
Down selection Voting Procedure (02/465r1)
Members are encouraged to review steps 3 – 10
Suggest concall to discuss 3 – 10 to identify areas of concern (12/4 and 12/11 at 11 am CST – host?)
Formal editing of this procedure will continue in the January meeting starting at step 3
Ian Gifford, Consultant

4. SC Overview Nov02 to Jan03 The SG3a/TG3a CFP was released 3Dec02
January 2003
SC Overview Nov02 to Jan03
The SG3a/TG3a CFP was released 3Dec02
The TG3a PAR was approved by NesCom/StdsBD on 11Dec02
ConCalls held on 4Dec02 and 11Dec02 and the minutes can be found in –02/491r1
Ian Gifford, Consultant

5. Session #22/FLL SC - Contributions
January 2003
Session #22/FLL SC - Contributions
-03/031r0 [03031r0P802-15_TG3a-PHY-Selection-Criteria.doc]
Annex A based on SC –02/471r4
-03/041r0, r1 [03041r1P802-15_TG3a-Down-Selection-Voting-Procedure.doc]
Based on -02/465r1, -02/487r0
-03/042r0 [03042r0P802-15_TG3a-Down-Selection-Process-Discussion.ppt]
Ian Gifford, Consultant

6. Overview of IEEE Process
January 2003
doc.: IEEE /042r1
January 2003
Overview of IEEE Process
This chart illustrates the whole standards process in simplified form.
Idea: The idea for a standard is usually developed by a group of people, and the responsibility for the idea is assumed by the sponsor. The sponsor is usually a society or an existing standards committee.
Project Approval Process: This idea is then transferred onto a form called the Project Authorization Request (PAR) and submitted to the New Standards Committee (NesCom) for approval.
Develop draft standard: The draft is then developed and revised by the working group.
Ballot draft: When the draft work is finalized, the sponsor forms the balloting group and ballots the standard.
Standards Board Approval: After your ballot has achieved consensus, the draft then goes to the Review Committee (RevCom) and the Standards Board for approval. The amount of time from PAR to Board approval is 4 years (an extension can be made if absolutely necessary).
Publish Standard: The draft is then edited and formatted by an IEEE Project Editor and published.
The standard is valid for 5 years before it must be reaffirmed, revised, or withdrawn.
Ian Gifford, Consultant
Ian Gifford, Consultant

7. January 2003
doc.: IEEE /042r1
January 2003
Call for Applications, Intentions, Proposals, and Down Selection Process
Legend:
CFI = Call For Interest
CFA = Call For Applications
CFI/CFP = Call For Intent/Call For Proposals
Ian Gifford, Consultant
Ian Gifford, Consultant

8. January 2003
doc.: IEEE /042r1
January 2003
The CFI/CFP Process
The figure to the right depicts the current state of the TG3a CFP Process thinking.
The WG requires a CFI to prepare the agenda.
Typically a CFP runs days and the CFI is 30 days BEFORE CFP deadline.
Ian Gifford, Consultant
Ian Gifford, Consultant

9. Down Selection Procedure, 02/491r1
January 2003
Down Selection Procedure, 02/491r1
After the 4Dec02 ConCall ChuckB decided to create a flow chart based on –02/465r1 (-03/041r1)
The steps in the graphic represent paragraphs in the procedure.
Ian Gifford, Consultant

10. Proposed CFP Timeline Nov02 Session #21/Kauai, HI USA
January 2003
doc.: IEEE /042r1
January 2003
Proposed CFP Timeline
Nov02 Session #21/Kauai, HI USA
We approved and then released the CFP on 3Dec02.
Jan03 Session #22/Ft Lauderdale, FL USA
We are planning that the TG3a approve the docs from the SG3a.
Mar03 Session #23/Dallas, TX USA
Proposals will be first heard in this Mar03 session.
May03 Session #24/Singapore, Singapore
If too many proposal for the Mar03 session, this will be the overflow.
We should spend part of this session discussing proposals presented, answering technical questions/concerns (i.e. put the diehard engineers in a room and let them verbally duke it out).
Spend time on conference calls discussing proposals to let everyone get comfortable (before and after this session).
Jul03 Session #25/San Francisco, CA USA
Down Selection and Voting will occur here
1st opportunity for automatic quorum after Mar03 presentations
Sep03 Session #26/TBA
Potential to start the drafting process - proposals for draft improvements should be entertained at this time
Nov03 Session #27/Albuquerque, NM USA
TG3a drafting process
...
Ian Gifford, Consultant
Ian Gifford, Consultant

11. 3Dec02 – CFI closes 3Feb03 and CFP closes 3Mar03.
January 2003
doc.: IEEE /042r1
SG3a Future Planning
January 2003
You are here
PAR
CFA
2002
CFP
2003
Draft D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
The CFA was released on 11Dec01 and closed on 21Jan02. The CFI/CFP was released on
3Dec02 – CFI closes 3Feb03 and CFP closes 3Mar03.
Ian Gifford, Consultant
Ian Gifford, Consultant

12. Ad Hoc Summary and Current Status
January 2003
Ad Hoc Summary and Current Status
Ian Gifford, Consultant

13. January 2003
Ad Hoc Summary
The ad hoc session was called to order by Ian Gifford, at 7 p.m. No minutes were taken other than the following slides.
Attendees:
The Ad Hoc Editing Team consisted of: Jim Allen, Steve March, Steve Turner, John Santhoff, Anuj Batra, Rick Roberts, Matt Welborn, Ian Gifford (facilitator), Len Miller, and Gregg Rasor. Thank you!
We recessed to the Hotel Bar at 8:30 p.m. 
Ian Gifford, Consultant

14. January 2003
Ad Hoc Status
The Ad Hoc committee reviewed the TG3a minutes –03/012r1 and applied all the edits that were referred to the ad hoc Down Selection Subcommittee from the Task Group 3a.
Contributions:
-03/041r2, Ad Hoc 13Jan03 edits
-03/041r3, Post Ad Hoc 14Jan03 edit
Ian Gifford, Consultant

15. Ad Hoc Status (cont.) Open Issues List:
January 2003
Ad Hoc Status (cont.)
Open Issues List:
CFP Presentation order in Mar03?
Pick from a hat.
Call For Intent (CFI) response to 3Feb03 deadline First In/Last Out i.e., the chronological RSVP date and time is reversed to create the agenda.
Panel Sessions?
After Initial Proposals (Step 2)
Time permitting and that it is mandatory
After each Roll Call Vote (Step 7)
Time permitting and that it is optional (up to TG Chair)
During or at the end of Session #23/Singapore
Ian Gifford, Consultant

16. Ad Hoc Status (cont.) Open Issues List: Voting Format?
January 2003
Ad Hoc Status (cont.)
Open Issues List:
Voting Format?
Low Hurdle Vote (Step 3)
e.g., TGg see –03/041r3
Elimination Vote (Step 7)
e.g., TG3 see –00/373r3 and –00/374r3
Roll Call Vote (Step 9)
Jim Allen edits [03041r1P802-15_TG3a-comments - JDA.doc]
Note: See JimA or IanG for this source doc.
Ian Gifford, Consultant

17. January 2003
Backup Slides
Ian Gifford, Consultant

18. Down Selection Process
January 2003
doc.: IEEE /042r1
January 2003
Down Selection Process
Red = Winner straw poll
Options Considered with Straw Poll Results
Separate Evaluation/Down Selection Voting: 42
Evaluation is the Down Selection Voting (combined) : 3
Down Selection Voting only: 0
Abstain: 14
Ian Gifford, Consultant
Ian Gifford, Consultant

19. Evaluation Process Evaluation is Really 2 discussions (or phases)
January 2003
doc.: IEEE /042r1
November 2002
Evaluation Process
Evaluation is Really 2 discussions (or phases)
Criteria Importance Level
Mandatory/Optional
ABC
A: Mandatory requirement
B: Important desired requirement
C: A nice to have requirement
Weighted values (0 – 10)
None
Scoring
Pass/Fail
Pugh Matrix
Better (+), Same, Worse (-) than a Baseline Solution
Rating (n > 2)
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Ian Gifford, Consultant

20. Evaluation Process Options Matrix
January 2003
doc.: IEEE /042r1
January 2003
Evaluation Process Options Matrix
Criteria Importance Level
Mandatory/
Optional
ABC Rating
Weighted Values
Pass/Fail  
Pugh Matrix
Rating (0-5)
Scoring
Ian Gifford, Consultant
Ian Gifford, Consultant

21. Criteria Importance Level
January 2003
doc.: IEEE /042r1
Evaluation Process
January 2003
Grey = Voted off the straw poll
Red = Winner straw poll No
Criteria Importance Level
Scoring
Straw Poll Count 1
Mandatory/Optional
Pass/Fail 2
Rating (n >2) 7 3
ABC Rating 4
Rating (n>2) 40 5
Weighted Values
Pugh Matrix 6
None 8 9
Rating (0-5) 10 11
Abstain
The goal of this straw poll is to gain consensus on the evaluation process from the committee. This selection could possibly happen in one straw poll. Each person should select only one of the above options for each straw poll set. If a tie exists between options, another straw poll will be taken to determine to best option of the remaining selections.
0-5
Low-Medium-High
--|-|0|+|++
Red|Yellow|Green
Ian Gifford, Consultant
Ian Gifford, Consultant

22. Criteria Importance Level Results
January 2003
Criteria Importance Level Results
Ian Gifford, Consultant

23. Criteria Importance Level Results (cont.)
January 2003
Criteria Importance Level Results (cont.)
Ian Gifford, Consultant

24. January 2003
doc.: IEEE /042r1
November 2002
Scoring Discussion
Red = Winner straw poll
Document scoring method in Annex for inclusion in IEEE P /105 Alternate PHY Selection Criteria
Contribution in 02/271r4, text to be reviewed in January
Decisions
Extent of Scoring: tabulated information (13) vs. tabulated information with committee analysis (35) vs. abstain (1)
Definition of committee analysis activity to be determine by end of January meeting
Criteria to Score: only most important (A’s only) vs. all criteria (no objections)
Definition of N > 2 Rating
How many levels desired: 3 levels (26) vs. 5 levels (23) vs. abstain (4)
Levels labeling: + / 0 / - (24) vs. a worded version (21) vs. abstain (3)
Mary DuVal, TI and Ian Gifford, Consultant
Ian Gifford, Consultant

25. Down Selection Voting Procedure
January 2003
Down Selection Voting Procedure
Red = Winner straw poll
Options Considered with Straw Poll Results
Ranking vote (lowest rank voted off): 2
Vote for desired proposal (lowest # of votes is off): 14
2 staged vote (eliminate low support proposals, vote for desired proposal): 22/32
Two votes per voting member (lowest number off): 18/21
Abstain: 5/5
Ian Gifford, Consultant

26. Down Selection Procedure Activity
January 2003
Down Selection Procedure Activity
Ad hoc group met Tuesday evening to develop proposed text for sub-committee
Sub-committee reached consensus on items 1 & 2 (of 10) – see 02/465r1 for current text
Procedure must be set in by the end of January meeting
Members are encouraged to review steps 3 – 10
Suggest concall to discuss 3 – 10 to identify areas of concern (12/4 and 12/11 at 11 am CST – host?)
Formal editing of this procedure will continue in the January meeting starting at step 3
Ian Gifford, Consultant