HLA Evolved Product Development Group

1
HLA EvolvedProduct Development Group 2008 Fall
SIW 18 September 2008 Randy Saunders, PDG
deputy chair for Roy Scrudder, PDG ChairDoD MS
Coordination OfficeRoy.Scrudder_at_osd.mil(703)
998-0660
2
Agenda

• Introduction IEEE Mandatory Meeting Notices
  Katherine L. Morse
• 1330-1340
• Ballot Resolution Update Randy Saunders
• 1340-1400
• 08F-SIW-064 - HLA Evolved - A Summary of Major -
  Björn Möller
• 1400-1420
• Main PDG Meeting Ends
• Interface Specification Ballot Resolution Group
  Meeing
• 1420- NLT 1500

3
IEEE Mandatory Meeting Announcements
4
Ballot Resolution GuidanceExcerpts are from the
IEEE Standards Companion
5
Consensus (1 of 2)

• Consensus means agreement among the majority. It
  does not mean unanimity. A balloting group does
  not need to achieve 100 approval, or even 95 or
  90. According to the IEEE rules, consensus is
  defined as a minimum 75 return of ballots from
  the balloting group, and a 75 approval rate from
  that 75 return group. If this is reached, then
  consensus has been achieved according to the IEEE
  definition.

6
Consensus (2 of 2)

• There are several rules that help to define what
  final level of consensus you reach. All ballot
  comments have to be responded to, and in
  considering a response you may make a change in
  the draft that may turn a no vote into a yes
  vote. The issue is what you do to balance your
  obligations to the majority versus that of the
  minority. Once you have achieved consensus, an
  obligation to the majority exists to approve and
  publish the standard quickly. However, you are
  obligated to respond to the negative comments of
  the minority. You should attempt to resolve those
  negative comments, but if there is no indication
  that further resolution can be achieved based on
  that, you should move your document forward for
  approval, still having met the terms of
  consensus.

7
Ballot Resolution (1 of 4)

• you must examine your negative ballots with any
  comments. Those comments should explain any
  difficulties the balloter has with the current
  document and offer precise wording for changes
  that would turn their "no" vote into a "yes"
  vote. In many cases, the balloter may offer vague
  solutions or even no solution at all. At this
  point, the working group (or a group established
  to resolve ballots) should examine the problem to
  see if they can resolve it on their own, or they
  may discuss the situation with the balloter and
  solicit more precise language.
• In some cases, the negative balloter may be
  contacted to see if he or she will change the
  vote or perhaps be willing to work out a
  compromise solution. This contact may be by phone
  initially. You should confirm all decisions in
  writing (email is acceptable).

8
Ballot Resolution (2 of 4)

• There is no obligation to satisfy all concerns
  once a 75 approval has been gained.
• In many cases, what needs to be judged is
  whether satisfying the concerns of a negative
  balloter will reduce overall consensus from the
  majority of balloters. If so, then the negative
  ballot may need to remain unresolved.
• Sometimes the ballot review group won't accept
  the proposal from the balloter but will offer
  alternative wording that the balloter will agree
  with. Sometimes the ballot review group will
  accept the comment outright. In either case, this
  would allow a balloter to change his or her "no"
  vote to a "yes" vote.

9
Ballot Resolution (3 of 4)

• There is no obligation to satisfy all concerns
  once a 75 approval has been gained.
• In many cases, what needs to be judged is
  whether satisfying the concerns of a negative
  balloter will reduce overall consensus from the
  majority of balloters. If so, then the negative
  ballot may need to remain unresolved.
• Sometimes the ballot review group won't accept
  the proposal from the balloter but will offer
  alternative wording that the balloter will agree
  with. Sometimes the ballot review group will
  accept the comment outright. In either case, this
  would allow a balloter to change his or her "no"
  vote to a "yes" vote.

10
Ballot Resolution (4 of 4)

• The ballot review group should therefore set a
  goal for itself of when they hope to conclude
  ballot review and attempt to stick to it if at
  all possible. Otherwise, ballot resolution can
  drag on interminably. Keep in mind the four-year
  life of your PAR, and develop a plan that will
  work with moving the project forward under that
  particular requirement.

11
Ballot Results

• The scope of the challenge our Ballot Resolution
  Group has been facing

12
Status

• Ballot Resolution Subgroups developing proposed
  resolutions to all comments
• Rules and OMT proposed resolutions developed
• IF Spec proposed resolutions nearly complete

13
Path Forward

• 10 October 2008
• All communication with no voters completed
• All proposed resolutions established by BRG
  subgroup
• Proposed resolutions sent to all ballot pool
  members for review
• 24 October 2008
• Deadline for ballot pool members to provide
  feedback on proposed resolutions
• 7 November 2008
• BRG subgroups establish resolutions to be
  implemented (minimizing any loss of consensus)
• 28 November 2008
• Document changes complete. Begin recirculation
  ballot.
• 19 December 2008
• Close recirculation ballot
• 30 January 2009
• All negative and positive comments addressed.
  Presuming no further technical changes,
  documentation submitted to IEEE Revisions
  Committee(REVCOM).
• 6 February 2009
• Deadline for REVCOM submission
• 19 March 2009
• - REVCOM targeted for approval.

will shorten this window if at all possible