May 2001 doc IEEE 802 15 01224 r

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 TG 3 Review Procedure Proposal NOTE: All of these recommendations do not apply to TG votes, but highly are recommended • Pre-Ballot Tasks • Balloting • Post-Ballot Tasks Submission 1 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Pre-Ballot Tasks • Ballot timeframe – Schedule backwards from desired processing event – Get specific TG or WG pre-approval for further action if processing event is not plenary • Ballot Package – Draft – Instructions – Voter comment sheet Submission 2 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Ballot Draft • Issued in PDF – Change Bar version between this version and the previously balloted version – Clean version – Instructions used by editor to create this version from the last voted version • Line numbers on all pages • Available on website, password protected • All known issues identified Submission 3 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Ballot Instructions • ALL 802. 15 Letter Ballots are electronic • Dates – Start – End (including time/time zone) • • • Contact information for ballot return and ACK Type of Ballot Voting Options Comment Types Comment/Response Status Codes Submission 4 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Type of Ballot Technical – The function of the protocol is changed as the result of the affirmation of the ballot Procedural – Passage of the ballot has no impact on the design of interoperable devices Submission 5 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 The ballot shall provide three choices: doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Voting Options 1) Approve (Affirmative). This vote may be accompanied by comments suggesting corrections and improvements. Action on such comments is left to the discretion of the Sponsor. [sponsor = WG = TG] 2) Do Not Approve (Negative). This vote shall be accompanied by specific reasons in sufficient detail so that the specific wording of the changes that will cause the negative voter to change his or her vote to "approve" can readily be determined. The Sponsor shall obtain written confirmation from each voter that indicates concurrence with any change of his or her vote. Written confirmation can be by letter, fax, or electronic mail. In the absence of reasons for a negative vote, the ballot shall, after a follow-up inquiry, be classified as "no response. " 3) Abstain. This category is provided to allow for ballot returns from members who do not wish to review the document because of conflict of interest, lack of expertise, or other reasons. A reason shall be given for this vote; otherwise, the ballot shall be classified as "no response. " Submission 6 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Comment Types (1 of 2) • Was – Type • Technical (T) – would cause improper implementation • technical (t) – error in fact, would not cause improper implementation • Editorial (E) – language used is unclear or misleading such that it may cause an improper implementation • editorial (e) – grammatical error not likely to cause improper implementation – Required resolution (Y or N) Submission 7 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Comment Types (2 of 2) • Suggest – Technical Required (TR) – Functional error that must be addressed for approval of Draft example: “all frames must be zero length” – Technical (T) – Non-critical functional error example: “hex value is 0 x 10 (seventeen decimal)” – Editorial Required (ER) – Lack of clarity of text likely to cause improper implementation and must be addressed for approval of Draft example: “A frame must be discarded subsequently” – Editorial (E) – Non-critical grammatical or spelling error example: “A example is provided” Submission 8 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Balloting • SHALL NOT change Draft during a vote – Invalidates vote – If required changes are identified, posting of notation of intent to change – this means another ballot will be required • Make sure chair (WG or TG) pings voters periodically – Requires 50% voters participation – Abstentions count towards participation • 75% approval required for Technical issues Submission 9 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Post-Ballot Tasks • • Triage of comments Processing comments Preliminary resolution Draft Response to voter Approval of resolution Application of changes Notification of Rejections/changes Submission 10 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Comment/Response Status Codes Q • Comment Status – X/received – D/dispatched for consideration – A/accepted – R/rejected – Q/questioned Q • Response Status – – – Submission O/open W/written C/closed U/unstatisfied Z/withdrawn 11 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Comment Flowchart (1 of 3) Submission 12 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Comment Flowchart (2 of 3) Submission 13 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Comment Flowchart (3 of 3) Submission 14 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Triage of Comments • Combine all comments into a single file • Decide if there is sufficient information in each comment to identify target of that comment • Decide if comment is classified appropriately • Divide ballots into logical groups • Form “tiger teams” to address comments • Charge tiger team to complete processing by a definite date Submission 15 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Processing comments • • Ad Hoc activity Address Technical comments first Review triage decisions Formulate and document decision Submission 16 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Preliminary resolution • TG-level task for “controversial” decisions • One issue per slide – Problem Statement – Commenter’s proposal – Tiger team’s recommendation – Rationale for decision Submission 17 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Draft Response to voter • Required for rejections • Recommended for any descriptor change • One letter per voter – Comment as entered – Response from TG Submission 18 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Approval of resolution • WG/TG vote (as appropriate) • Technical issue (75% approval) • Vote format – Plenary – Interim • WG • With authorization – Letter Ballot Submission 19 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Application of changes • Applied by Section Editors • Supervised by Lead Editor • WG Technical Editor available as an advisor Submission 20 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 Notification of Rejections/changes • Sent via email • Request for change of vote • Follow-up to WG/TG on any withdrawals of comments Submission 21 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants

May 2001 Submission doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -01/224 r 1 22 Tom Siep, TMS Consultants