[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: stds-802-16-tg3: Re: TG3 PHY Voting Rules

Thanks for the clarifications Roger. I had understood that yes/no voting on
motions at meetings was based on having to be there but I had assumed that
scoring type ballots and email scoring / voting were like the more formal TG
or WG letter ballots - i.e. any accredited WG member.

I like your notion of "Adaptive Equalization" - that the voter's habits will
adjust to reflect the voting rules. I thought that only happened in Florida.

Anyway, sorry for raising the dust. I'll return to my cave.

David Trinkwon    e-mail : trinkwon@compuserve.com
NOTE : NEW USA Phone and Fax Numbers
Tel :  UK  (+44) (0) 7802 538315   USA   (+1) 650 245 5650
Fax : UK (+44) (0) 20 7681 1695   USA   (+1) 650 649 2728

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	owner-stds-802-16-tg3@ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16-tg3@ieee.org]  On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent:	29 January 2001 05:36
To:	stds-802-16-tg3@ieee.org
Subject:	stds-802-16-tg3: Re: TG3 PHY Voting Rules


(1) On the issue of voting eligibility:

The 802.16 policy is expressed in
<http://ieee802.org/16/involve.html>, which says, in part:

>802.16 Members have the following exclusive rights:
>*	To vote, if and only if present, at any meeting of 802.16 or
>its subsidiaries.
>*	To vote by email on any issue involving 802.16 or its subsidiaries.

This suggests to me that the process at Session #11 was in accordance
with policy. I also notice that the "802.16.3 Task Group: Invitation
To Contribute PHY Proposals: Session #11" (IEEE 802.16.3-00/24) says:
"Each Voting Member of 802.16 is eligible to participate in the
evaluation,if and only if present."

Likewise, "802.16.3 Task Group: Call for Contributions for Session
#10 (inviting initial PHY proposals)" (IEEE 802.16.3-00/14) said
"Each of the Voting Members of 802.16 is eligible to participate in
the evaluation, if present." Given that, during Session #10, the
scoring process was changed from on-site to post-session electronic,
then it seems to follow that opening up the scoring to those members
not present at the meeting is also in accordance with the 802.16

(2) My personal thoughts on the selection process:

The procedure that TG3 has adopted (unanimously, according to the
unapproved minutes) for scoring in March 2001 sounds rigorous.
Whatever the criteria, though, people adjust their scores accordingly.

The TG1 process was clearly focused on one primary goal: to encourage
consolidation of proposals and quickly lead us to a good draft to
begin revising. It was only secondarily seen as a means of weeding
out proposals. In November 1999, TG1 heard its initial 19 PHY
proposals. By January 2000, we were down to two consolidated
proposals. At that time, we decided that future scoring exercises
would be for information only, not for selection purposes.

My sense is that TG3 has generally been more inclined to view the
scoring as some kind of neutral jury procedure intended to pick the
technically ideal solution. Since the jurors are not neutral, I think
this is hard to achieve. It seems to me, though, that people in TG3
are starting to get together, and I think that this is a good thing.
Before we get to a standard, we are going to need more consolidation,
including both those who were invited and those who were not. I was
surprised that TG3 adopted such a rigorous scoring system for Session
#12, but I view the decision as indicating a desire to quickly
consolidate and move on to developing  consensus draft.


At 10:54 PM +0000 01/01/28, David Trinkwon wrote:
>During meeting #11 (Ottawa) you reported that you had disqualified four PHY
>voters because they were not registered / present at the Meeting. When I
>asked for clarification of how this compared with the procedure for the
>earlier voting following Meeting #10 (Tampa) you said that you had carried
>out the same procedure then (although you didn't say how many (if any)
>member votes had been disqualified on that occasion). On the basis of your
>response you therefore proposed to implement the same procedure for the
>round of voting at Mtg #12 (Hilton Head).
>I have checked the Call for Proposal / Voting Instructions etc for Mtgs #10
>and #11 (see extracts below) and these appear NOT to allow you to exclude
>any member's votes based on their presence or absence at the relevant
>meeting. This also means that the basis for changing the instructions for
>Mtg #12 might be unsafe, since it was accepted by the task group partly on
>the basis of your incorrect response to my question.
>In my opinion, you must analyze the impact of disqualifying any such votes
>in Mtgs #10 and #11 and advise TG3 whether this modifies the results of who
>should / should not have been invited to submit more detailed proposals for
>Mtgs #11 and #12 respectively. The members can then consider what (if any)
>remedial action could / should be taken. I can help you and/or Anader to do
>the analysis with the Excel spreadsheets if necessary.
>I am still personally uncomfortable with your "directive" that proposals
>Mtg #12 must score an average of seven or more (out of ten) for ALL
>evaluation criteria, although I accept that this was properly announced to
>the TG3 members in the draft call for proposals, and voted through (albeit
>in a hurry). This procedure seems far more rigorous than was the TG1
>procedure (as I understand it - although I wasn't involved at the time). My
>general concern is that voting rules are being made up and forced through
>the fly without opportunity for proper thought and consideration by the
>members. This leaves the integrity of the process and the impartiality of
>the Chair open to criticism.
>I believe that under the Spirit of 802 and 802.16 rules (Roger will
>presumably advise on the Letter of the rules and past practice) ALL WG
>Members are entitled to participate in  formal voting on significant
>like the selection of PHYs, whether they attend a particular meeting, or
>attend a particular TG session within a meeting or not. If participation IN
>the meeting is to become the basis for validity, then firstly you should
>probably wait to see if the members qualified under the 75% rule for
>attendance at sessions of the WG meeting concerned (which didn't occur at
>Mtg #11), and secondly we should consider whether the qualifying attendance
>should be registered primarily in the TG3 sessions / book, since members
>spent all or most of their time in other TG sessions should not be more
>eligible than accredited members who were not able to be at the meetings at
>Please call if you would like to discuss these questions.
>IEEE 802.16.3-00/20r1
>All IEEE 802.16 members and observers are eligible to submit voting scores
>but only the scores of members will be counted for the purpose of
>Average scores of members and nonmembers will be reported separately.
>Individual scores, with the identity of the scorer, will be available on
>password-protected web area.
>All IEEE802.16 members and observers are eligible to submit voting scores
>but only the scores of members will be counted for the purposes of
>invitation.  Average scores of members and non-members will be reported
>separately.  Individual scores, with the identity of the scorer, will be
>available on the password-protected web area.
>Each Voting Member of 802.16 is eligible to participate in the evaluation,
>if and only if present, with scores due on Thursday, March 15, 2001.
>David Trinkwon    e-mail : trinkwon@compuserve.com
>NOTE : NEW USA Phone and Fax Numbers
>Tel :  UK  (+44) (0) 7802 538315   USA   (+1) 650 245 5650
>Fax : UK (+44) (0) 20 7681 1695   USA   (+1) 650 649 2728