| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Colleagues,
Experience from
past IEEE standards shows that a core team of interested and available group
members winds up doing the bulk of comment resolution in some form of face to
face meetings. If the forum for the face to face meetings is the entire group
meeting, then others can monitor the progress but wind up not contributing
as much.
Once the core group is assembled either explicitly or
implicitly, it tends to define a schedule of its own to press forward with the
difficult work of comment resolution. It is typically in the WG's best interest
to support the core team in doing so. This work often involves contacting
the commenter in real time (over the phone if they are not present) to discuss
their comments and proposed resolutions. (As an aside, in sponsor ballot many of
the commenters would not be attending the comment resolution
meetings)
If we decide the core team is only authorized to work
in the context of the WG meeting, or if the WG meeting is to be devoted to
comment resolution, the approach I've seen that works fastest is to partition
the core team. Each sub-group works on an area of functionality (or other way of
organizing the chunk of comments to be addressed) and develops resolutions in
parallel.The resolutions are then confirmed as acceptable to the commenter
offline (but during the meeting) and the agreed resolution *briefly* presented
to the WG. The point is that the approval/review of the entire WG (including the
monitoring folks) isn't needed to resolve the comment, as long as the commenter
is satisfied with the resolution. Then the recirc allows full review and
subsequent comment.
It would be good to build some consensus around these
issues in advance of the Florida meeting. It will save time on process
discussions, so we can focus on the standard
content.
Best
Regards,
Michael
From: ext Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 10:24 AM To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: Telecon May 04 From: NJEDJOU
Eric RD-RESA-REN [mailto:eric.njedjou@francetelecom.com] Thanx Vivek for
providing a summary of the comments. I guess your intent was to capture
comments you deem are absolutely to be dealt with during the [Vivek
G Gupta] No,
the intent was just to provide the summary. The comments I tried to highlight
were in my view the ones that could take up a lot of discussion time and hence
wanted to encourage folks to submit Reply
comments. More generally, could
we address technical binding comments in priority inJacksonville and let other
for telecons? The intent behind would be to avoid the need of a June or August
physical meeting if possible [Vivek
G Gupta] We
can try to prioritize Technical Binding comments though we have to resolve all
comments sooner or later. Teleconferences have generally not turned out to be a
good way to resolve things and achieve consensus. Also we do have a large number
of comments to resolve. A
F2F ad hoc may be the best way to tackle this.
Adressing comments on a
linear base generally does not prove efficient. Regards Eric
De :
stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] De la part de Gupta, Vivek G Please refer to
21-06-0655-00-0000-LB1_Comment_Summary.ppt in May 2006 folder on 802.21 web site
for further information for today’s telecon. Best
Regards -Vivek From:
stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Gupta, Vivek G Last teleconference
before May meeting: Thursday
May 04, 9 AM EST Phone:
916-356-2663, Bridge: 1, Passcode:
3765295 Agenda: - Comment Résolution
Process (60 minutes) Best
Regards -Vivek |