July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 TGg Chairs Guidance
July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 TGg Chairs Guidance on Technical Selection Procedure Matthew B. Shoemake [email protected] IEEE 802.11 Task Group G Chairperson July 10, 2001 Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Direction from the 802.11 WG Rules have been consistently stated by the chairperson Must have open and fair debate on meaning of selection procedure Must recognize that procedure is
about consensus, not endurance 01-336-r1-W-Resol ution Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Standardization Flow Diagram Study Group Formed PAR and 5 Criteria Drafted PAR and 5 Criteria Approved By WG Submission
PAR and 5 Criteria Approved By ExCom PAR Approved By NesCom TG Produces Draft Standard Draft Standard Sent to WG LB Resolution Of Comments By Task Group Resolution Of Comments
By Task Group Final IEEE Standards Approval Draft Standard Sent to Sponsor Ballot Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Producing a Draft Standard Procedure for producing draft standard is determined by each individual Task Group Draft must represent a consensus as mandated by requirement of at least
75% support Ultimately support must typically be achieved in the high 90th percentile to obtain final approval Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Task Group G Procedure to Enable Draft TGg was required to produce its own technical selection procedure The procedure is contained in document 00-209-r3 TGg reserved the right to change the selection procedure 00-209-r3 Technical Selection Procedure Submission
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Individual TG Determines Procedure Define Functional Requirements 1 Define Comparison Criteria 2,3 Call for Proposals 4 Submission
Flow Chart of Selection Procedure Deadline for submission and cut-off data 5,6 Must meet Func. Req. Mergers allowed 7,8 Presentation of Proposals and comparison criteria 9,10 Questions from Members Final Statements from authors 11,12 Low Hurdle Vote 13
Technical changes and/or mergers 14,15 Present Data, Questions and Final Statements 16, 17,18 Rounds of Elimination Voting 19 Enabled Draft 20 Individual TG Determines Procedure Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 History of Selection Procedure Procedure was written at July 2000 Session Procedure was approved at September 2000 session Original draft was written by Matthew Shoemake Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 History Selection Procedure Discussion Excerpts from document 00-246, Minutes of July 2000 Session: On Wednesday July 12th 3.2
Discussion of Key Group Requirements of Selection Process (Doc. 209) 3.2.2 Mark Webster would like to have the ability to merge two proposals. Document will be rewritten to address the possibility of having two proposals merging. 3.2.3 No vote was taken. Requirements of Selection Process will be put up for vote with TGg. From document 00-246 On Thursday July 13th 4.2.2 Selection Process i. No issues with document. Will be submitted to server as (Doc. 209r1) Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0
History of 802.11a and 802.11b There were known problems with the 802.11a and 802.11b procedure, so TGg attempted to actively correct these issues For example, the procedures did not comply with the 75% approval requirement of 802 LMSC Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Selection Procedure Step 19 Actual text of step 19: Rounds of voting will be held that successively eliminate one candidate proposal at a time. On each round of voting, the candidate proposal that receives the least number of votes shall be eliminated from consideration. (In the event of a tie for the lease number of votes, a separate vote shall be held to select which of the candidates receiving the least votes shall
be eliminated in the current round. The other candidate(s) shall remain for the next round.) Between rounds of voting, presenters will again have the opportunity to merger proposals. Should the right to merge proposals be exercised, the comparison matrix will be updated accordingly and the presenter(s) will have the opportunity to present the merged proposal. If a merger occurs, the remaining proposals that did not merge will have the opportunity to present the details of their proposal again. The rounds of voting will continue until only one candidate proposal remains and one candidate proposal obtains 75% or more of the vote. The text for Step 19 did not change through any of revisions after 00-209r1 Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson 802.11 WG and TGg Growth There were less than 20 participants when the selection procedure was approved in TGg There were over
170 members voting at the May 2001 session Submission doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 200 180 160 Votes Cast on Motions July 2001 Task Group G Working Group 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
6-Dec-99 15-Mar00 23-Jun00 1-Oct-00 9-Jan-01 19-Apr- 28-Jul-01 01 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 How to Determine the Meaning of Step 19 Can go back to author and ask for intent and logic Can ask other individuals who recall discussion on this topic Submission
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Authors Meaning of Step 19members to provide Step was intended to allow feedback on several proposals by casting rounds of votes Procedure was intentionally set up to allow consensus by: Allowing mergers Allowing authors to change their proposal at any time Procedure was intentionally constructed to eliminate a candidate at each round including the final round where only one proposal remains Intention was that if the last candidate could not achieve 75%, control would explicitly be put back into the hands of the Task Group and the Selection Procedure (doc. 00-209-r3) would be terminated Submission
Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Consistency in Interpretation Chair has continually said that selection procedure has a hole in that the selection procedure may be finished and a proposal not have been selected Chair has communicated to candidates that there will be a final vote when one candidate is left: Reference letter to Colum Caldwell Reference letter to Heegard and Webster Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Letter to Caldwell On March 1, 2001 Colum Caldwell wrote: 19)Rounds of......."proposal that receives the least number of votes shall be eliminated from consideration"... If at the opening of the next meeting only two proposals went forward and a vote takes place then the proposal with the largest number of votes would be the only remaining proposal. This proposal would then seek a 75% vote on a on-going basis. Is this an accurate interpretation? On March 4, 2001 the chair replied: You are correct that if there are only two proposals and one is eliminated, there will be another round of voting to try to get over 75%. However, I believe that clause 19 also says that on every round of voting, one proposal will be eliminated. This prevents indefinite voting. Let me know if I did not clear up all your questions. Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0
Letter to Heegard and Webster April 30, 2001 Dear Chris and Mark: I am writing to you as the independent IEEE 802.11g chairperson. As representatives of the CCK-OFDM proposal and the PBCC proposal to IEEE 802.11g, I am contacting you to convey my thoughts on our continued progress. In addition, Stuart J. Kerry, the independent chairperson of IEEE 802.11 has reviewed this letter and concurs with the statements herein. Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Letter to Heegard and Webster April 30, 2001 (2) As of the March 2001 meeting, the proposals that you have submitted are the only two remaining candidates under
the technical Selection Procedure (doc. 00/209r3) that was adopted by IEEE 802.11g. This elimination procedure will continue to eliminate proposals one at a time. However, the procedure does allow for mergers and modifications. As you are aware, ultimately the IEEE 802.11g Task Group must reach a 75% consensus to enable an official draft of the IEEE 802.11g standard. Likewise, it is my job as chairperson to see to it that the body moves forward without undue delay in a fashion that leads the body to such a consensus. Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Letter to Heegard and Webster April 30, 2001 (3) The IEEE 802.11 Working Group chair and I were particularly pleased to see cooperation and communication between representatives of each of your proposals following our adjournment at the March 2001 session. As compromise is often required in these standardization processes, I would
like to thank each of you for this initiative. I would also like to encourage the initiative to continue. I would also like to let you know that, just as the IEEE 802.11 Working Group chair did at the March 2001 session, I will continue to publicly and privately encourage cooperation that may lead Task Group G to a strong consensus. Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 Letter to Heegard and Webster April 30, 2001 (4) doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 If either of you (or preferably both of you jointly) have suggestions that you believe will allow the body to move forward toward the objective of enabling a draft standard for 802.11g that will enjoy strong support, I would be more than happy to hear them and figure out a way to work with you inside the rules to move forward constructively. I look forward to working with you at the May 2001 session to move IEEE 802.11g
forward. Best regards, Matthew B. Shoemake, Ph.D. IEEE 802.11 Task Group G Chairperson Additional signature: Stuart J. Kerry IEEE 802.11 Working Group Chairperson Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Fairness Important to be fair to all: Members of TGg Current remaining proposal under step 19 CCK-OFDM Members that have had their proposals eliminated under step 19 MBCK, PBCC
Members that have previously had proposals eliminated DQPSK Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Fairness to Authors of DQPSK, MBCK, and PBCC Must be wary of changing the Selection Procedure in mid-process Such action could violate the rights of these members Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Fairness to Authors of CCK-OFDM Must provide authors with opportunity to present information related to their proposal Must allow authors the chance to build consensus in the body Must then allow voting on the proposal Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Fairness to Members The majority of members must control the process The members must not be held hostage by the voting process
Members must have the ability to voice their opinions and ideas Ultimately the majority of the members will determine the procedure to be followed Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Fairness and Ambiguity If there is and has been general uncertainty and ambiguity about the meaning of the selection procedure, there may be a need to clarify and reset to some point Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July
2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Consensus Without strong consensus, IEEE 802.11g will be destined for an extended process Consensus is attained via compromise To date, compromises have been offered, but no consensus has been reached The LMSC operating rules were constructed to drive consensus, e.g. 75% rules The 802.11g selection procedure was constructed to drive consensus also, e.g. The 75% rules itself Mergers are allowed Modifications are allowed No forced mergers Mandatory elimination if 75% is not reach Mandatory elimination of all candidates even on the last round
Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 IEEE 802 Operating Rules Task Groups job is to generate a draft standard by voting with at least 75% of the members in favor Procedure in the Task Group should not subvert this rule by allowing a 50% majority to repeatedly retain only one candidate Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001
doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Issue of the Ballot Due to the fact that no ability to dissent from the proposals was offer on the ballots for step 19, we now have a procedural issue The logical progression of the ballot would be to list CCK-OFDM and ABSTAIN, however in previous ballots the abstains were not counted, thus any vote with such a ballot would have predetermined outcome (assuming CCK-OFDM obtains one vote) with no mechanism for dissent. Such a ballot can not be allowed. Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Issue of the Ballot (2) In consultation with numerous other 802.11 officers, it has been recommended to add a
NONE OF THE ABOVE category to the ballots The same consultation has yielded the opinion that this will change step 19, thus step 19 must be executed over again It has also been noted that since the ballots did not include a NONE OF THE ABOVE option, the members may not have had the opportunity to voice their dissent to the options on the ballots Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson July 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/460r0 Recommendation from the Chair Step 19 shall be execute again by reinstating all three proposals that were in consideration at the beginning of that round. Step 19 shall be execute again with NONE OF THE ABOVE option added to the ballot
When only one candidate proposal remains in the rounds of voting, there shall be one and only one additional vote. If the proposal obtains >=75%, the proposal shall be used for generating the first draft proposal. If the proposal obtains <75%, the proposal will also be eliminated, the Selection Procedure will be over, and it will be up to the members at large to determine how to proceed in enabling a draft standard Submission Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg Chairperson
Synthesis Biosynthesis Reagents = small carbon-based molecules (e.g. amino acids, carbohydrates) Catalysts = enzymes, proteins that bind and then catalyze chemical reaction Chapter 17: Aldehydes and Ketones - Nucleophilic Addition 17.1 - Nomenclature of Aldehydes and Ketones 17.2 - 17.4...
Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsverordnung für die Pflegeberufe . Anlagen 1-4 Kompetenzbereiche. I. Pflegeprozesse und Pflegediagnostik in akuten und dauerhaften Pflegesituationen verantwortlich planen, organisieren, gestalten, durchführen, steuern und evaluieren
The Chemistry of Acids and Bases Acid and Bases Acids Have a sour taste. Vinegar is a solution of acetic acid. Citrus fruits contain citric acid. ... and place a drop of the solution from the end of the stirring...
(From 1 October, MyHallamreplaces shuspace as your student portal) Home. Login to view your Blackboard sites, Student Record and online tools. Key messages and news (updated regularly) News and information from the other six areas. 6 Key Areas.
Discrete Time Markov Chain Markov process: dynamic evolution is such that future state depends only on the present (past is irrelevant). Markov Chain Discrete state (or sample) space. DTMC : time (index) is also discrete i.e. system is observed only...
Le Smét prédomine dans la population féminine, ceci concordant avec certaines données de la littérature (1) . Ce résultat est divergent des résultats de l'étude française DESIR qui a objectivé une prédominance masculine ,par contre l'étude NHANES 2003-2012 a aussi...
Listen carefully to each song and answer the following questions: ... Rhythm- the beat of a poem, created by stressed and unstressed syllables in words. ... They hand from dripping branches in the gray. woods of my mind; And other...