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

Re: [P1619-3] P1619.3 Organizational Motion



Having been the behinds-the-scenes instigator for this motion, here are my thoughts on this move:

Concerning the overhead of changing:  We can choose to do as much or as little work as desired to make this change.  The simplest thing to do is just keep everything essentially the same, but to create a new IASC working group for P1619.3, and to copy over everything from SISWG.  That would include the operating procedures and the voting structure.  Given the overwhelming support from previous meetings for the Individual-style membership, I think we can leave that can-of-worms unopened.

The primary motivation for this change is to reduce the number of mandatory irrelevant meetings.  The existing SISWG plenary meetings have the problem that one part of the membership doesn't care about P1619.2 and the other part doesn't care about P1619.3.  SISWG really isn't big enough to justify the overhead of a traditional plenary meeting.

If we adopt the change, then P1619/P1619.1/P1619.2 would all continue to operate under SISWG meetings, and P1619.3 would operate in independent meetings.

Of the P1619.3 members, there appear to be those in two camps:
1) members who want as few (mandatory) meetings as possible so that the overhead of monitoring P1619.3 is reduced as much as possible.
2) members who want frequent meetings and who are interested in quickly finishing the standard.

The existing structure is good for members in the first group because it keeps P1619.3 less dangerous.  However, it's frustrating for those in the second group because it's slow to make progress.  This is because the ad-hoc P1619.3 meetings don't have enough members to meaningfully make decisions, and there's not enough time in the plenary meetings to discuss P1619.3 details.

In looking at other standards groups, INCITS T10 seems better serves the needs of the first group, where there are well-established standards that you don't want to change too quickly.  On the other hand, OASIS KMIP seems to better serve members of the second type, where there is a meeting each week with a full voting membership that can make quick progress.

Since P1619.3 doesn't have any legacy, I think we want to satisfy the second group, and provide all the necessary tools for the standard to quickly advance to sponsor ballot.  We could probably accomplish this with bi-weekly meetings that allow full voting.

Cheers,
-Matt

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Eric Hibbard <Eric.Hibbard@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Ahhhhh...but that is the point...the new WG would need go through a process to establish officers, have approved operating procedures, and deal with the IEEE reporting (the latter item is not much of an issue). Clearly the new WG could leverage some of the SISWG materials and adjust them appropriately.

Keep in mind that there probably wouldn't be a task group structure in a new WG, so every WG meeting would be a "plenary" meeting (i.e., attendance has an impact on membership).

-Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry.Hofer@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Larry.Hofer@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:50 PM
To: Eric Hibbard; P1619-3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Larry.Hofer@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: P1619.3 Organizational Motion

Rather than deal with all that (again), why wouldn't you just call for a plenary meeting whenever important votes are needed in .3?  How many SISWG members would object to that alternate approach?

Larry H

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Hibbard [mailto:Eric.Hibbard@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 3:37 PM
To: P1619-3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [P1619-3] P1619.3 Organizational Motion

Wearing a 1619.3 hat... The importance of the frequency of meetings is related to the criteria established for maintaining voting membership. When SISWG was focused on a single standard, we had very lax attendance rules (twice in a 12 month period), but over time this resulted in unrealistic quorum requirements to conduct business.

There is nothing to say that the operating procedures for a new WG have to be the same as SISWG. For that matter, the WG would need to decide whether it uses the individual or corporate membership approach.

-Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Hubis, Walt [mailto:Walt.Hubis@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:17 PM
To: P1619-3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [P1619-3] P1619.3 Organizational Motion

I presume we could decide what frequency of meeting would work best. Some members have suggested meetings every two weeks. OF course, we could choose to differentiate between plenary meetings (voting meetings) and working meetings.

-Walt

--

Walt Hubis
Software Architect
Engenio Storage Group

LSI Corporation
5400 Airport Blvd Ste 100
Boulder, CO 80301 USA
Phone: (303) 381-4332
Mobile: (303) 641-8528
walt.hubis@xxxxxxx
http://www.lsi.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry.Hofer@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Larry.Hofer@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 3:14 PM
To: Hubis, Walt; P1619-3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Larry.Hofer@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: P1619.3 Organizaional Motion

How often would "official" 1619.3 meetings be held? Monthly maybe?
Larry H

-----Original Message-----
From: Hubis, Walt [mailto:Walt.Hubis@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:32 PM
To: P1619-3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [P1619-3] P1619.3 Organizaional Motion

At the last P1619.3 meeting is was recommended that a motion be brought forward during the next SISWG plenary meeting to move the P1619.3 key management project out of SISWG and into a separate work group under IEEE Information Assurance Standards Committee (IASC).

The group members agreed that the current method of requiring P1619.3 members to attend SISWG plenary meetings in order to maintain voting privileges and to have a binding vote is inefficient. In addition, there is only limited overlap between the P1619, P1619.1, and P1619.2 projects and the P1619.3 project. The intention is to provide binding votes and attendance for voting privileges strictly within the P1619.3 work group.

The proposed text of the motion is:

"Shall the P1619.3 Key Management Project of SISWG be moved to a separate working group under the IEEE Information Assurance Standards Committee (IASC)?'

Please comment on this proposal or recommend any changes to the wording of this motion through the reflector. The next meeting of the SISWG plenary is on December 16, 2009.

Thanks,
Walt Hubis

--

Walt Hubis
Software Architect
Engenio Storage Group

LSI Corporation
5400 Airport Blvd Ste 100
Boulder, CO 80301 USA
Phone: (303) 381-4332
Mobile: (303) 641-8528
walt.hubis@xxxxxxx
http://www.lsi.com



--
Thanks!

Matt Ball, Chair, IEEE P1619 Security in Storage Working Group
Staff Engineer, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
500 Eldorado Blvd, Bldg #5 BRM05-212, Broomfield, CO 80021
Work: 303-272-7580, Cell: 303-717-2717