Re: [1904.3 TF] Few notes after the Louisville April meeting..

[Glen Kramer <gkramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

Let me offer several recommendations based on past experience. 

1. Do not format you initial proposal into the form required for standards drafts. This format is not optimized for projectors and it has many style requirements that the contributors need not be concerned with at this stage

2. Use an application most appropriate for presentation of your idea. Can be doc, ppt, excel, or even plain text. 

3. Whatever you use to prepare the material and present it, for archiving on the web, we always prefer PDF. Unless you expect other members to take your contribution and further modify it, please submit it in PDF. 

4. Motions to accept a baseline proposal usually reference a specific document. Try to limit one document to one single idea/proposal. 

It is the editor's responsibility to convert all baseline proposals into the first draft,m. But it is acceptable and a common practice to delegate this to the proposal's author. 

Glen

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 3, 2015, at 3:57 PM, patrick diamond <pdseeker@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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