Meeting 39 Minutes

Teleconference, January 14^th , 2008

A quorum of nine out of ten voting members present. Two non-voting members are also present. Attendance and voter status indicated on the roster web page.

Attendees

• Voting members: Andrew Piziali, Darren Galpin, Joseph Hupcey, Mark Strickland, Matan Vax, Sandeep Desai, Serrie Chapman, Stylianos Diamantidis, Yaron Kashai

• Non-voting members: Charu Aggarwal, Joe Daniels

1. Call to order

Call to order on January 14^th, 2008 at 9:04 am PDT (1704 UTC).

Andrew reminded members to mail a message to "rollcall@ieee1647.org" in order to record their meeting attendance.

2. Approval of meeting 38 minutes

Serrie Chapman made a motion to approve the meeting 38 minutes

Yaron Kashai seconded the motion

No discussion of minutes and no objections

Motion approved

3. Status Update

Andrew: Firstly, I’d like to touch on a couple of open issues from the last meeting, we had some action items between Matan and myself. I was supposed to review the changes to draft 5 with Joe Daniels that would be incorporated into the ballot draft. Those have been done. Second, I had an action Item to close issue item 627 which was entitled ‘posting BNF redundant productions’, and actually that BNF grammar has been removed from the website because it was out of date and so that issue was closed also. We had one open item, for Matan, which was to open and issue to remove the last sentence of the first paragraph of section B.1 (“The ordering problem in e,” P1647_Draft_5_071127.pdf, page 441, lines 37-40), because it was no longer relevant and he in fact did that and that’s incorporated into draft six, which will be balloted shortly. Were there any other action items which I missed from the last meeting?

*Silence*

Andrew: Moving on then to the status of the balloting. The ballot invitation went out several weeks ago. As of this morning there are 20 members in the ballot group, distributed between one half general interest, one quarter users, 20% producers and the remaining 5%, well, the remaining one person, is in academia. In the working group I encourage each of you to join the ballot group. You can go to standards.ieee.org, into the myBallot section or just follow the instructions that you received in the email message that I mailed earlier this month. Likewise, and perhaps even more importantly, it would be best to encourage your colleagues and other e users to join that ballot pool. Are there any other questions about the balloting procedure, the formation of the group―I’ll talk about the schedule in the moment―but anything about the ballot pool creation and subsequent ballot?

*Silence*

Andrew: Okay. Quiet bunch this morning! The schedule is the next item on the agenda. So, as I mentioned, January we are forming the ballot pool. 30 days are allocated, I believe, for the ballot pool creation. In the near future we are also going to begin soliciting donations for the next revision of the standard, tentatively given the name IEEE P1647-2010. In February, next month, we expect to actually ballot 1647-2008. In March we’ll be reviewing the comments and only if necessary, file a re-circulation Ballot. In April, or late March the IEEE will passed the approved standard to Revcom, and they can cross the Ts and dot the Is and ensure that all the correct procedures were followed and we would expect the '08 standard to be published in June. Probably before DAC this year. That is the schedule that we have currently planned. Any comments, questions on that?

*Silence*

4. Editor

Joe D: Happy New Year to everyone, and thanks for your work. I actually thought we might be in the ballot period this month but it’s a month from now which is okay. I'm looking forward to …

Joe Hupcey dials in, apologizes for lateness and is greeted ….

Joe D.: ... seeing the review comments probably come March time.

5. Other business

Andrew: Please send message to rollcall@ieee1647.org. Any other business?

Andrew: Anything else? The floor is open to anyone who wants to raise any points or suggestions for anything that is not currently on the agenda.

Joe D.: The only other thing Andy is if you want to share with the groups what we talked about―the parallel processing ... about the next set of revisions.

Andrew: Thanks for the reminder. As I mentioned earlier, we'd like to overlap the final balloting of 2008 draft with the beginnings of technical donations and early document creation for the 2010 standard. So, I’m not sure how early we’re considering Joe, maybe late January we can start putting the documentation and material together for formal solicitation of donations. Then, at that point between February and March, we will start reviewing any documents that are donated and start planning how those get incorporated into the '08 standard . In order to keep things separately as you and I discussed we will start some 2x revision nomenclature within the issue tracking system, in order to keep things completely separate and, if necessary, in fact keep any initial changes or suggestions off the issue tracking system, to avoid any contamination between the last copy of the standard and the next revision.

Joe D.: That would also include any deferred items?

Andrew: That’s right. There are a number of deferred items that would move from deferred to reconsideration. There are currently five my recollection is ... five issues that are in the deferred status. Any comments or suggestions on the overlapping or not overlapping early work on the next draft?

*Silence*

Joe D: Perhaps Joe (H) can resubmit his list of things he thought should be seen in this 2008 revision but didn't make it?

Andrew: Absolutely! Joe I think there are ...

Joe H.: Is there a Wiki mechanism or something? I think that is a great thing for everybody in the group to list what are their favorite things they want to see in the future revisions.

Andrew: What we’ve done in the past Joe is actually open an issue, saying ‘I’d like to see this added to the language’ and it can initially be a broad description of a feature or change of functionality. And, later on or even initially, be more of a detailed a white paper discussion or proposal to go in there and that could actually proceed in fact any formal technology variation of that particular company. At least one of the current deferred issues is, in fact, in that form as an issue.

Joe H.: That would be great, something that would be obvious for everyone to find and contribute to whatever to. Make it abundantly clear where people can go to to submit their comments.

Andrew: Okay, if you capture those in an issue you could at the same time mail out a message to the reflector, with a brief introduction as to the proposal and a suggestion and a pointer to the issue.

Joe H.: Exactly, something like that, it should also be very clear on the homepage. That is this is issue is to capture …inputs for ..

Andrew: I see what you’re saying. So, if someone visits the website there’ll be a pointer to not only what we’re currently doing but also to the current status and the issue tracking system so that somebody can read about the current proposals.

Joe H.: Exactly

Andrew: Any other business??

6. Call for essential patents

The IEEE-SA updated the patent policy effective April 30.

The details are available in updated slide set at:

http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf (See “Patent related” from the IEEE 1647 home page, “Slides about IEEE Patent Policy”).

If you believe that any patent claims are essential patent claims, please inform the working group. Review the posted slides for more information.

7. Next meeting

Andrew: February 11 at 9 am PST (1700 UTC)

8. Adjourn

Stylianos made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Darren seconded the motion.

Meeting adjourned.