RE: Few notes after the Louisville April meeting..
There is actually some stuff already online.
The ANWG ppt template is here: http://www.ieee1904.org/documents/templates/anwg_template.pptx
Guideline for submissions / contributions is here: http://www.ieee1904.org/private/3/tf3_presentproc.shtml
I would still emphasize what Kevin said that the idea proponent needs to be ready to show how his/her contribution would integrate into the working copy. This is vaguely similar what some other SDOs do i.e. have a "discussion paper" (free format) and then the actual "change request" against the working copy.
- Jouni
> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrick diamond [mailto:pdseeker@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 2:57 PM
> To: Bross, Kevin
> Cc: Jouni Korhonen; STDS-1904-3-TF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Few notes after the Louisville April meeting..
>
> Kevin
>
> The idea of separating inputs/ideas into unique doc's is good.
> Given this idea is yours I would assume you have template format ideas to
> propose? If the info formats for several different ideas is equally different
> assessing them against each other is tough and doesn't do any of them justice.
>
> Pat Diamond
>
> On Apr 3, 2015, at 16:36, Bross, Kevin <kevin.bross@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Jouni,
>
> I'm glad we made progress on the skeleton of the document, but I have a
> counter-proposal for standard operating procedure.
>
> If we're just trying to introduce a concept, I could see cases where PPT, XLS, or
> other formats might work to introduce/debate the concept. If the idea is
> accepted, then the advocate for that idea should generally be responsible for
> putting the idea into the template.
>
> I like what you're saying, but I'm suggesting that there's probably a predecessor
> stage where we may want to explicitly have it in a different format so that it
> doesn't look like it's integrated. [I've had experiences with other standards
> groups where competing proposals for concepts made to draft specs made it
> difficult to evaluate the concept and compare differing approaches. In those
> cases, we've found that getting the idea reviewed discretely was easier and
> more time-efficient: we don't waste time word-smithing ideas when the
> concept isn't approved.]
>
> Thoughts?
> --kb
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stds-1904-3-tf@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-1904-3-tf@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Jouni Korhonen
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 10:57 AM
> To: STDS-1904-3-TF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Few notes after the Louisville April meeting..
>
> Folks,
>
> Go and check the opening report at
> http://www.ieee1904.org/3/meeting_archive/2015/04/tf3_1504_opening.pdf
> for the opening report and the 1904.3 timeline. That is pretty aggressive..
>
> Also, for the future contributions/changes/proposal, please use the word
> document template found at
> http://www.ieee1904.org/3/meeting_archive/2015/04/tf3_1504_korhonen_1a.
> docx. This is just a template for drafts and an attempt to make the life of the
> editor easier. The current word document also captures nicely most of the
> discussion we had here at the meeting.
>
> - Jouni
>
> --
> Jouni Korhonen, CTO Office, Networking, Broadcom Corporation
> O: +1-408-922-8135, M: +1-408-391-7160