Docstoc

Ft Lauderdale TG3a Minutes

Document Sample
Ft Lauderdale TG3a Minutes Powered By Docstoc
					January, 2003

IEEE P802.15-03/012r1 IEEE P802.15 Wireless Personal Area Networks

Project Title Date Submitted Source

IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

Ft. Lauderdale Meeting Minutes
[13 January 2003] [Leonard E. Miller] [NIST] [Gaithersburg, MD] Voice: Fax: E-mail: [301-975-8018] [301-590-0932] [Lmiller@antd.nist.gov]

Re: Abstract Purpose Notice

802.15.3a Task Group Ft. Lauderdale Meeting Minutes Minutes of Task Group 3a in Ft. Lauderdale Minutes of Task Group 3a in Ft. Lauderdale This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P802.15. CONTENTS

Release

Monday, 13 January 2003 Sessions 1-4 Tuesday, 14 January 2003 Sessions 5-7 Wednesday, 15 January 2003 Sessions 8-9 Thursday, 16 January 2003 Sessions 10-12 People Attending TG3a Sessions

Submission

Page 1

Leonard E. Miller, NIST

January, 2003
MONDAY, 14 JANUARY 2003 Session 1 (Joint session with TG3)

IEEE P802.15-03/012r1

The session was called to order by the WG chairman, Bob Heile, at 10:39 a.m. TG3a secretary Len Miller served as secretary of the joint session. The TG3 chairman, John Barr, reviewed the TG3 agenda for the week (document 03/003r0). The agenda was approved on general consent, as were the minutes of the TG3 Kauai meeting, document 02/419r0. The TG3a agenda for the week (document 03/006r3) was reviewed by TG3a vice chairman Chuck Brabenac. A motion was made (Ian Gifford, Jim Allen seconding) to amend the agenda as follows: (a) to include time to consider corrections to the call for proposals (CFP) on Thursday afternoon and (b) by moving one of the presentations from Tuesday to Thursday in order to have more time to consider editing of the Selection Criteria document on Tuesday. The amended agenda (03/006r4) was approved by general consent. The SG3a Kauai meeting minutes (02/422r11) were approved by general consent. The following slate of TG3a officers was approved unanimously: Chairman Bob Heile Vice Chairman Chuck Brabenac Secretary Len Miller Technical Editor Rick Roberts The session recessed at 11:14 a.m. Session 2 (Selection procedure editing) The session was called to order by the TG chairman, Bob Heile, at 1:10 p.m. He turned the meeting over to Ian Gifford for editing of the draft document 03/041r1 describing the proposal selection process. Ian reviewed the history of 03/041 (formerly 02/465), using the slides in 03/042r0 to summarize the next steps in completing the document. He proposed that the discussion proceed by agreeing to a final version of a flow diagram for the process, then adapt the text to the diagram. The current draft of the flow diagram, from the minutes of SG3a conference calls (02/491r2) is given below for reference. It was suggested that Step 7 of the flow diagram be clarified to show that the proposal receiving the least number of votes shall be eliminated. The procedure in Step 3 was questioned: if no proposal receives 25% in the initial elimination vote, then what happens? Comments: 1. This situation is very unlikely. If it happens, something is wrong with the whole process to this point (CFA, CPF, etc.). 2. Maybe the elimination approach in Step 7 would be appropriate: eliminate the proposal(s) with the lowest number of votes in the initial elimination round of Step 3. 3. Perhaps the abstentions should be counted differently. One method: don’t count abstentions but eliminate a proposal receiving more than 30%. Submission Page 2 Leonard E. Miller, NIST

January, 2003
[Step 2] Initial set of 1 hr proposal presentations/ discussions

IEEE P802.15-03/012r1

Flow chart based on 02/465r1 04Dec2002, C. Brabenac

[Step 3] Initial elimination vote (> 25%)

One proposal left?

Y

[Step 8] Conduct roll call confirmation vote

N
[Steps 4&5] Merging / technical changes

75%??

Y

N
[Steps 6] 60 minute presentations [Step 8] "No" vote reasons stated

[Steps 7] Conduct elimination vote (1 proposal elim)

[Step 8] Proposer responds to "No" vote reasons

[Step 10] Down-selection complete

[Step 8] Conduct roll call confirmation vote Notes: Step 1, 5, and parts 7 relative to merging are combined into a modified step 5

[Step 9] Bring back last 3 proposals

N

75%??

Y

Figure: Flow diagram of Selection Process in 02/491r2.

Submission

Page 3

Leonard E. Miller, NIST

January, 2003

IEEE P802.15-03/012r1

Supported motion: Change the 25% threshold (“low hurdle”) rule in Step 3 to a ranking rule. The question was called. Voting: 4 for, 21 against, 6 abstain (motion to amend fails). Further comments on Step 3: 1. Counting abstentions may eliminate too many proposals at the beginning. 2. Counting abstentions means “no abstentions” and is not fair. 3. The purpose of the elimination in Step 3 would be best served by using the elimination procedure as in Step 7. Supported motion: Strike the last sentence in Step 3, removing the stipulation that abstentions are counted in the total. Supported motion: Amend the amendment: Strike all of Step 3. Vote: 3 for, 17 opposed, 3 abstentions (motion to amend the amendment fails). Vote on previous motion: 11 for, 12 opposed, 6 abstain. (Motion to amend fails.) Supported motion: Accept Step 3 as written. Supported motion (amendment): Change the threshold to 20%. Vote: 13 for, 4 against, 10 abstentions. (Motion to amend carries). Vote on the previous motion, as amended: 16 for, 4 against, 5 abstentions. (Amended motion carries.) The session recessed at 2:47 p.m. Session 3 The chairman, Bob Heile, called the session to order at 3:22 p.m. Jason Ellis gave an overview of the editing of the Selection Criteria document (03/031) between the Kauai and Ft. Lauderdale meetings. Discussion continued of the draft document 03/041r1 describing the proposal selection process, led by Ian Gifford. No suggestions were made for changing Steps 4 and 5, regarding technical changes and mergers. It was suggested (and generally accepted) that Step 6, regarding additional presentation time following an elimination round be modified to say “new data” instead of “data.” Discussion of Step 7, regarding the elimination vote, was held. Supported motion: Prior to Step 4 (following Step 7 in the loop), add a step for recessing the meeting (a pause) for merging to take place. Vote: 6 for, 10 against, 6 abstentions. (Motion fails.) Supported motion: Modify Step 5 to include appropriate language that the mention of including a reasonable “pause” when merging of proposals occurs. Vote: 20 for, 2 against, 4 abstentions. (Motion carries.) Discussion was held of Step 8, regarding a roll call vote to confirm the selection of the surviving proposal. On general consent, the suggestion that Step 8 be modified by removing the words, “only…change their vote.” It was also suggested that the editors find a way to prevent unnecessary repetitions of Step 8. Discussion was held of Step 9, covering the possibility of the last remaining proposal’s failing to achieve a 75% approval rate, triggering a “reset” process. It was suggested that the process return to the situation prior to Step 3 (instead of a Step 4) in order to bring in “new Submission Page 4 Leonard E. Miller, NIST

January, 2003

IEEE P802.15-03/012r1

blood” for a “stale” situation. It was also suggested, to the contrary, that the proper solution for the situation would be to improve the remaining proposal to the satisfaction of the required number of voters, “keeping the pressure on for a consensus.” It was suggested that the results of early votes on proposers should be recorded, so that, if Step 9 is invoked, a ranked pool of previously considered proposals would exist. Or, at the end of Step 3, the proposals remaining could be ranked. It was noted that the literal meaning of the current wording of Step 9 involves ranking since elimination of proposals involves a form of ranking. Step 10, regarding submittal of the prevailing proposal to the WG, was described as a good step for ensuring the approval of the WG at each stage of the approval process. The session recessed at 5:17 p.m.

Session 4

TUESDAY, 15 JANUARY 2003 Session 5

Session 6

Session 7

WEDNESDAY, 16 JANUARY 2003 Session 8

Session 9

THURSDAY, 17 JANUARY 2003 Session 10 Submission Page 5 Leonard E. Miller, NIST

January, 2003

IEEE P802.15-03/012r1

Session 11

Session 12

NAMES OF PEOPLE ATTENDING TG3a SESSIONS (Green color unconfirmed)
Aditya Agrawal, Fujitsu, aagrawal@fma.fujitsu.com Masa Akahane, Sony, akahane@wcs.sony.co.jp Geoff Anderson, Sony, Geoffrey.Anderson@am.sony.com Mitch Aramaki, Panasonic, aramaki@research.panasonic.com Larry Arnett, Mitsubishi, larnett@ieee.org Roberto Aiello, Discrete Time, roberto@discretetime.com Rick Alfvin, Appairent, alfvin@appairent.com Naiel Askar, General Atomics, naiel.askar@gat.com Jay Bain, Time Domain, jay.bain@timedomain.com Krishna Balachandran, Lucent Bell Labs, krishnab@lucent.com Jaiganesh Balakrishnan, Texas Inst., jai@ti.com Anuj Batra, Texas Instruments, batra@ti.com Pradeep Baul, Microsoft, pradeepb@microsoft.com Amir Beeri, Infineon Technologies, amir.beeri@infineon.com Don Berry, Microsoft, donbe@microsoft.com Mark Bowles, Discrete Time, mark@discretetime.com Chuck Brabenac, Intel, chuck.brabenac@intel.com Soo-Young Chang, UC Davis/ U Suwon, sychang@ucdavis.edu Francois Chin, Inst. Comm. Research, Aik Chindapol, Siemens, aik.chindapol@icm.siemens.com Anand Dabak, Texas Instruments, Michael Dydyk, Motorola, michael.dydyk@motorola.com Jason Ellis, General Atomics, Jason.ellis@gat.com Randal Erman, TRDA, rerman@trda-inc.com Mark Fidler, Hewlett-Packard, mark.fiddler@hp.com Reed Fisher, DKI Electric, reedfisher@juno.com Jeff Foerster, Intel, jeffrey.r.foerster@intel.com Ian Gifford, Consultant, giffordi@ieee.org Sorin Goldenberg, Wisair, soring@wisair.com Dongwoon Hahn, LG Electronics, dhahn@lge.com Yasuo Harada, Matsushita, yasuo@isl.mei.co.jp Bob Heile, Appairent, bheile@ieee.org Masaharu Horie, TRDA, mhorie@trda-inc.om Bob Huang, Sony, robert.huang@am.sony.com Eran Igler, Alvarion, eran.igler@alvarion.com Katsukmi Ishii, JVC, kirk@jvclab.com Hossein Izadpanah, HRL, hipanah@hrl.com Jeyhan Karaoguz, Broadcom, jeyhan@broadcom.com Masami Katagiri, NEC, m-katagiri@el.nec.com Joy Kelly, Time Domain, joy.kelly@timedomain.com In Hwan Kim, Samsung, inhwan@samsung.com Myoung-Soo Kim, Sinhwa, mskim@shinhwa21.co.kr Yong Suk Kim, Samsung, yongsuk@samsumg.com Young-Hwan Kim, Samsung, yhkim@sait.samsung.co.kr Young Keun Kim, Samsung, ykksam@samsung.com Chang Yeul Kwon, Samsung, cy.kwon@samsung.com Do-Hoon Kwon, Samsung, kwon22@samsung.com Oh Sang Kwon, Samsung, narcis@samsung.com Hyeon-Jae Lee, Samsung, hyeonjae@samsung.co.kr David Leeper, Intel, david.g.leeper@intel.com Manuel Lobeira, Univ. Cantabria, mlobeira@acordecom.com Akira Maeki, Hitachi America,

Submission

Page 6

Leonard E. Miller, NIST

January, 2003
akira.maeki@hal.hitachi.com Steven March, Texas Instruments, smarch@ti.com Mike McInnis, Boeing, michael.d.mcinnis@boeing.com Jim Meyer, Time Domain, jim.meyer@timedomain.com Len Miller, NIST, LMiller@antd.nist.gov Mashiro Mimura, Matsushita, mimura@mrit.mei.co.jp Akira Miuro, consultant Tony Morelli, Intersil, tmorelli@intersil.com Yuichi Morioka, Sony Yves Paul Nakache, Matsushita, nakachey@merl.com Chiu Ngo, Philips, chiu.ngo@philips.com Knut Odman, XtremeSpectrum, kodman@xtremespectrum.com Hiroyo Ogawa, CRL, hogawa@crl.go.jp Philip Orlik, Mitsubishi, porlik@merl.com Jonghun Park, Samsung, Dave Patton, HP, dave.patton@hp.com Marcus Pendergrass, Time Domain, marcus.pendergrass@timedomain.com Paul Popescu, France Telecom, paul.popescu@rd.francetelecom.com Glyn Roberts, ST Microelectronics, glyn.roberts@st.com Rick Roberts, XtremeSpectrum, rroberts@xtremespectrum.com Chris Rogers, Intel, chris.b.rogers@intel.com Philippe Rouzet, ST Microelectronics, philippe.rouzet@st.com John Santoff, Pulse-Link

IEEE P802.15-03/012r1
Hideaki Sato, MMAC, ads07416@nifty.com Steven Schell, Bitzmo, schell@bitzmo.com Tom Schuster, Intermec, tom.Schuster@intermec.com Mike Seals, Intersil, mseals@intersil.com Steve Shellhammer, Symbol, shell@symbol.com Musaaki Shida, Hitachi, shida@bi.wakwak.com Daisuke Shinomiya, Fujitsu, shinomiya.daisu@jp.fujitsu.com Etan Shirron, Infineon Technologies, etan.shirron@infineon.com Gadi Shor, Wisair Bill Shvodian, XtremeSpectrum, bshvodian@xtremespectrum.com Kai Siwiak, Time Domain, kai.siwiak@timedomain.com Larry Taylor, Discrete Time, larry@discretetime.com David Trainor, Amphion Semiconductor, dtrainor@amphion.com Ernest Tsui, Intel, ernest.tsui@intel.com Steve Turner, Texas Instruments, Toru Ueda, Sharp, Hidemi Usuba, Pioneer, hidema_usuba@post.pioneer.co.jp Matt Welborn, XtremeSpectrum, mwelborn@xtremespectrum.com Stephen Wood, Intel, stephen.r.wood@intel.com Hirohisa Yamguchi, Texas Instruments, h-yamaguchi4@ti.com Song LinYoung, Sharp, syoung@sharplabs.com

Submission

Page 7

Leonard E. Miller, NIST


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:11/4/2009
language:English
pages:7