Re: [802SEC] 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team ad hoc

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

Hi Adrian and All:

I appreciate Adrian's summary, and agree with all of it except the idea that the Tiger Team did not vote on its report because such a vote would have failed. I believe Tiger Team participants did generally support the report and that a vote on the report would have passed. We did not vote in the TT because we never planned to vote in the TT. The timeline Paul provided gives a sense of the process that the TT followed.

Here are the two points that it is important to me that the EC understand:

The Tiger Team was composed of both IEEE 802 and non-IEEE 802 participants, and thus had a voice distinct from IEEE 802's voice. IEEE 802 cannot speak for the Tiger Team, nor the Tiger Team for IEEE 802. The TT no longer exists, so its voice is represented by its documents (see timeline), particularly its final report 11-15-0347r0.
The TT final report (11-15-0347r0) was the result of a well defined, deliberative process in which both IEEE 802.11 and DSRC stakeholders were fully engaged. It was always part of that process to include the TT voting results, and there was no suggestion within the TT to omit them. The concern that emerged in Berlin, particularly with regard to Section 11 (voting results), was brought largely by 802.11 WG members who did not participate significantly in the TT. It was not a concern expressed in the TT.

A couple of quotes from the October 3, 2014 TT meeting minutes illustrate the early articulation of the plan for the report (see 11-14-1347r0):

Chair commented that he has been discussing with the Chair of the REG SC the use of an online service such as SurveyMonkey to conduct a straw poll to gather the opinions of the Tiger Team participants on how they feel about the two proposals, as opposed to trying to make a motion and try to attain 75% approval in a formal IEEE 802.11 Working Group sense. Chair comments that he does not think that the number of IEEE 802.11 voters that participate in the Tiger Team are representative of the broader group. The results of such a poll would be submitted as part of this group's final report to the REG SC. ...

Chair comments that the intent of the REG SC was to see if we could gain consensus on single proposal. If we cannot do that, then what we are left with is for the Tiger Team to summarize the proposals that have been submitted, do a straw poll on them to ascertain the level of support for each, and send those results to the REG SC, but not try to pass judgment on any one particular approach.

Best Regards,

John Kenney (Toyota ITC)

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Stephens, Adrian P <Adrian.P.Stephens@intel.com> wrote:

Hello all,

I think we need to be careful with words like consensus, because they mean different things

to different people.

There was no formal approval of the Tiger Team report by the Tiger Team. I believe that approval

was not sought in the Tiger Team, because it was clear to participants that it would not obtain

75% approval.

There was no formal approval of the Tiger Team report by the REG SC.

There were various questions asked by straw poll both within the Tiger Team and the REG SC, and

the results to these questions can be found in the Tiger Team report and REG SC minutes.   Being

straw polls, they have no formal standing. A motion on the same question may or may not produce

the same outcome – but we don’t know.

The only formal approval by 802.11 was a procedural motion to forward the Tiger Team report to 802.18,

without endorsing it in any way.

Best Regards,

Adrian P STEPHENS

Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +1 (971) 330 6025 (mobile) ç please note new number

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John D'Ambrosia
Sent: 03 April 2015 13:40

To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team ad hoc timeline

All,

This wording is somewhat confusing to me.

In the first sentence it states that there is no consensus within IEEE 802. However, bullet 1 indicates individuals from 802 met with DSRC representatives, and this group was unable to reach consensus.

What is not clear to me was there a lack of consensus within 802 or in the tiger team, which consisted of 802 and DSRC representatives.

I am not sure if I am missing something or if this is a wording issue, but it is somewhat confusing.

John

From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Michael Lynch
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 9:39 PM
To: James P. K. Gilb; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team ad hoc timeline

Sent from my Windows Phone

From: James P. K. Gilb
Sent: ‎4/‎2/‎2015 19:27
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team ad hoc timeline

All

From what I have been told, what the EC should approve is as follows:
----------------------------
The IEEE 802 EC would like to state that while IEEE 802 has no
consensus regarding an answer to the question, IEEE 802 would like to
state the following:
1) IEEE 802 participants met in a Tiger Team with DSRC representatives
to discuss the issue.
2) While there was a good exchange of ideas, the group was unable to
reach consensus.
3) IEEE 802 EC would like to report that participants discussed
various issues, as outlined in http://mentor.ieee.org/... but that we
can take no position on the issue before the FCC.
4) IEEE 802 encourages similar discussions and efforts for consensus
in the future regarding regulatory matters.

Thanks
Chair of IEEE 802
----------------------------

I can support sending that letter to the FCC. Anything else would
misrepresent the consensus of IEEE 802 (from what I have been told).

IMHO.

James Gilb

On 04/02/2015 12:34 PM, John Kenney wrote:
> Hi Paul and Adrian,
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the timeline.
>
> I suggest that for the period Dec. 2014 to March 2015 we add some
> detail concerning the process that produced the Tiger Team final report and
> the Tiger Team online poll.
>
> These documents demonstrate that both the report and the voting results
> were developed through an open and deliberative process. Poll questions
> were edited over several hours of Tiger Team teleconferences in December
> and January. Final report comments were resolved over several hours
> of Tiger Team teleconferences in February and March.
>
> *Date of posting of each revision of draft Tiger Team final report: DCN
> 11-14-1596 (doc)*
> revision 00 posted Dec. 12, 2014
> revision 01 posted Jan. 30, 2015
> revision 02 posted Feb. 20, 2015
> revision 03 posted Mar 06, 2015
> revision 04 posted Mar 09, 2015
>
> *Date of posting of clean Tiger Team final report: DCN 11-15-0347 (pdf)*
> March 09, 2015
>
> *Date of posting of each revision of consolidated comment spreadsheet: DCN
> 11-15-0175 (xls)*
> revision 00 posted Jan. 15, 2015
> revision 01 posted Jan. 29, 2015
> revision 02 posted Feb. 20, 2015
> revision 03 posted Feb. 27, 2015
> revision 04 posted Mar 06, 2015
> revision 05 posted Mar 09, 2015
>
> *Comment resolution teleconference dates (60 to 90 minutes each):*
> Feb. 6, Feb. 20, Feb. 27 and March 6, 2015.
>
> *Tiger Team voting:*
>
>     - Straw Poll final questions: posted Jan 30, 2015
>
>     https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/15/11-15-0240-00-0reg-dsrc-coex-tt-final-report-straw-poll-questions.ppt
>
>     - Eligible voter list and Tiger Team attendance: posted Jan. 30, 2015
>
>     https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/15/11-15-0183-02-0reg-dsrc-coexistence-tt-attendance.xls
>
>     - Online Survey Period: Feb. 9 to Feb. 23, 2015
>
>     - Overview of results: posted Feb. 27, 2015
>
>     https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/15/11-15-0288-00-0reg-overview-of-dsrc-coex-tt-straw-poll-results.ppt
>
>     - Sorted comments: posted March 8, 2015
>
>     https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/15/11-15-0352-01-0reg-dsrc-tiger-team-straw-poll-comments-sorted.xlsx
>
> I hope the EC voters find this information useful.
>
> Best Regards,
> John Kenney
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Shellhammer, Steve <
> sshellha@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
>>   Paul and Adrian,
>>
>>
>>
>>                 Here are a few corrections, based on my memory of events.
>>
>>
>>
>> *March 10. 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee Meeting*
>>
>> The minutes are missing the statement from the chair that he is not going
>> to have the standing committee vote on approval of the Tiger Team Technical
>> Report.
>>
>>
>>
>> *March 11. 802.11 WG minutes*
>>
>> “28.2.20. Chair: This is a procedural motion (50%), as the motion states
>> that the document will go to IEEE 802.18.” is missing the final words of
>> the chair. His statement was actually,
>>
>>
>>
>> “28.2.20. Chair: This is a procedural motion (50%), as the motion states
>> that the document will go to IEEE 802.18, since this will be a technical
>> motion in 802.18 where 75% approval is required.”
>>
>>
>>
>> *March 12. 802.18 Meeting*
>>
>> The minutes are missing that statement from the chair that this is a
>> procedural motion, though several of us in the meeting stated that our
>> opinion that this was a technical motion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:
>> STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Nikolich
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 01, 2015 8:28 AM
>> *To:* STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> *Subject:* [802SEC] 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team
>> ad hoc timeline
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear EC members,
>>
>>
>>
>> Adrian and I have collaborated on creating a timeline (
>> https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/15/ec-15-0029-00-00EC-dsrc-tiger-team-timeline.docx).
>> The objective of this effort is capture the procedural steps taken by
>> 802 in an easy-to-follow document on how 802 arrived at the current state
>> regarding the completion of the 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC
>> Tiger Team ad hoc activities.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please review, correct errors and suggest enhancements. It is important
>> that we have an accurate context in which to make a decision on this
>> pending matter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> --Paul
>>
>> ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>>   ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>>
>
>
>

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.

---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.

---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.

---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.

John Kenney

Director and Principal Researcher

Toyota InfoTechnology Center, USA

465 Bernardo Avenue

Mountain View, CA 94043

Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644