Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

FW: [802.21] MRPM SG Call for Contributions

 

Posting a message from Phil which did not make it to reflector yesterday

-Vivek

 

From: Phillip Barber [mailto:pbarber@broadbandmobiletech.com]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 12:26 PM
To: 'Feder, Peretz (Peretz)'; 'Behcet Sarikaya'
Subject: RE: [802.21] MRPM SG Call for Contributions

 

Peretz,

 

The name ‘Study Group’ is perhaps a misnomer for its actual function in 802. In 802 a Study Group is not even formed until AFTER the proposed problem area has been studied, usually through some presentations and contributions, frequently at length. The pre-Study Group process acts as a vetting procedure to ensure that a Study Group is not formed to undertake work that is actually not of interest, not solvable, or otherwise unworthy for development of a standard.

 

However, once a Study Group is formed, it has two functions:

 

  1. Affirm the topicality and viability of the problem—Is this really a problem? Is the problem important enough and interesting enough for us to solve? Is it something that can be solved at all/are we likely to agree on a solution? Is the problem solvable with a standard or recommended practice?  All of these questions should have been asked in the pre-Study Group phase, but they are asked AGAIN in the Study Group, partially to affirm the prior preconceptions, and partially because a Study Group frequently has a Member base that is different than the group that did the pre-Study Group analysis. Part of the benefit of the formation of a formal Study Group is to publicly announce that a group is looking into a problem area, and to invite interested individuals to participate in the discussion and decision process. Study Group Membership is open to all comers, or at least anyone that pays the IEEE conference fee.
  2. Decide where and how the work should be done; prepare any necessary project documentation—If the Study Group affirms the topicality and viability of the project, then the Study Group has one, and only one function: to recommend to the parent group, in this case 802.21 WG, and to the 802 EC what to do to solve the problem. That recommendation can take one of three forms:
    1. No action—the Study Group can recommend that the current 802.21 PAR (or some other group, either within the IEEE community or without) sufficiently covers the proposed work, and the considered group can engage in the work and solve the problem without any change to its work mandate;
    2. Recommend modification to an existing PAR—the Study Group can recommend that the work is best performed within a specific, existing project, usually because the participants and activity of that group are best suited to the work, but that some element (scope or purpose) of that projects PAR needs altering to include the new proposed work item;
    3. A new PAR and 5 Criteria—the Study Group can recommend that no current group or project adequately covers the proposed work item, or that inclusion of the proposed work item into the work of an existing group or project would be disruptive and/or diverting, so a new project should be created, which includes the preparation of a PAR and 5 Criteria, to undertake the work. Further, the Study Group can recommend under what parentage/sponsorship in the 802 community the work should be done. The Study Group can recommend that the work be done in an existing Working Group, like 802.21, or in an all new Working Group.

 

So, you are very correct in saying that the Study Group should revisit the topic under scrutiny to affirm its prior finding of topicality and viability.

 

But the Study Group has a limited life (four months; it will expire at the end of the next Plenary mtg, in November), and IF the Study Group decided to recommend the creation of a PAR and 5 Criteria, that PAR and 5 Criteria would have to be submitted to be approved by the parent WG, 802.21, in time to meet the 30 day filing deadline prior to the November Plenary. That means that the Study Group and subsequently 802.21 would have to APPROVE such a PAR & 5 Criteria DURING the September interim. Failing that timeline, the Study Group and 802.21 would have to agree to request renewal of the Study Groups chartering approval from the 802 EC, at the November Plenary, not an infrequent occurrence for Study Groups given how difficult it really is to get the work done, essentially in a single Interim meeting cycle.

 

And, of course, there is the overall 802.21 timeline. Now in Sponsor Ballot, 802.21 could be done with its base work by the end of Q1 or Q2 next year. It is responsible group stewardship to have new, important and necessary work queued-up so that the 802.21 Membership are not left with meeting cycles with nothing to do. (What, you didn’t really think you were going to get a vacation or something; wrong industry J). I am not suggesting creating work for its own sake. But there is much important work left undone that 802.21 may be well suited to undertaking. We are all best served if we organize the work schedule to transition to the new work as seamlessly as possible.

 

But I do agree with you that we should not just skip over the ‘affirmation’ process of the Study Group. The process has a reason.

 

Thanks,

Phil

 

From: Feder, Peretz (Peretz)
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 11:18 AM
To: Behcet Sarikaya
Subject: RE: [802.21] MRPM SG Call for Contributions

 

Hi Behcet:

 

When a member like Peretz is pushing a PAR before the study group had a clear direction and its study properly conducted, it raises natural questions about Peretz’s agenda.  What is the rush? What are we missing by studying the topic first?

 

BR, Peretz Feder