Following is a list of procedural complaints made in negative ballot comments, in e-mails, and in a formal letter from three members of the ballot group to the IEEE Standards Association. I also list relevant facts that I've been able to dig up in the last few months, and I list some questions left to consider. As I read, you can jot down notes for things you want to discuss in the 25-minute discussion period which follows.

1. Biased Working Group Chairman

Complaints have been made that the chair of the working group has a conflict of interest and should not have been chair.

In the August 1995 working group meeting, members made the point that the working group chair has a conflict of interest. The meeting minutes state: "A concern was also raised about the working group being chaired by one of the parties presenting a proposal. This gave the impression of a conflict of interest. All agreed it would be better to find a neutral chairperson. No one volunteered for the position. However, some of the attendees are considering the position. Therefore, the working group is open to any volunteers for the chairperson position. Unless a volunteer comes forward at or before the next meeting, Robert Canik will continue as chairman."

In the weeks following the meeting, group members Don Bryan and Allen Tracht were considering being chair. E-mails from that time show that Bob Cram and Robert Canik encouraged them to be chair. Bob suggested that Don and Allen could be co-chairs and share the duties since they were concerned about the time commitment. I have not spoken to Allen Tracht, but I did speak to Don Bryan, and he said that he then decided he could not devote the time.

A couple of months after that, in a January 8th e-mail to the group announcing the NI/CEC agreement, Robert Canik states, "The issue of a non-neutral chairman should be resolved since there is no longer two competing standards." And, the minutes of the February 1996 working group meeting state, "In light of the CEC and NI joint statement, the group agreed that Robert Canik would remain as chair."

Relevant points:

• No proposals beyond those submitted by NI and CEC had arrived by the deadline set by the working group, the deadline being the February 1996 meeting. Since CEC decided to support the NI proposal, Robert Canik never presided over a vote on competing proposals. However, he did preside over the Dec. 1996 letter ballot which included the question of whether to consider a new proposal that had come forward, but this was several months after the proposal deadline had passed.

Questions to consider:

• Was it appropriate for the working group to drop the question of conflict of interest just because they had settled on the NI proposal? Was there any conflict of interest in Robert Canik chairing the drafting of the revised standard? For instance, had NI already developed their integrated circuit, and was there pressure on Robert Canik to make sure that the ultimate draft conformed to that IC design?
• One negative balloter suggests that, "The fact that nobody else volunteered for the chair does not change [the conflict of interest], and I believe that the IEEE should not have allowed the working group to continue under these circumstances." Should TC-8 or the IEEE Standards Board not have allowed the working group to continue under Robert Canik's chairmanship, even if the working group had decided that it was no longer an issue?
• This seems to me to be a "gray area" and a "catch 22." No one else agreed to chair the working group. The time commitment of chairmanship apparently required a person with some business interest in the project, otherwise his employers would not accept the cost to them. What practical alternatives were there? And if the biased chairperson did all the work of running the project, but all meaningful matters were referred to a group vote, is there any significant conflict of interest?

2. Explanation of how Working Group arrived at each draft, including procedures, letter ballots, and ballot results

(Robert Canik will present this part. But I have some points to make below if Robert does not mention them.)

Relevant points:

• From mid 1992 to early 1996, a period of more than three years, anyone had the opportunity to propose a high-speed 488 protocol at a TC-8 or 488 working group meeting. There seems to have been enough participation and dialogue during this period for interested persons in the industry to know to make their proposals. Only the CEC and NI proposals came forward during this period, and then Draft 1.1 was formed by the working group in February 1996.
• (Read the relevant portions of the Feb. 1996 meeting minutes and most of the Dec. 1996 "Letter accompanying Working Group Ballot.")
• The results of the December 1996 working group ballot of Draft 1.3 was 9 Approves, 3 Disapproves, and 2 Abstains. In early 1997, the TC-8 leadership, Marlyn Miner and Bob Cram, decided that it was appropriate to then submit the draft for official IEEE standards balloting.

Questions to consider:

• Were these procedures that were taken by TC-8 and the working group up to 1997 proper and fair?
• Did all interested parties have opportunity for input?
• Was the voting working group balanced?
• Was there an adequate consensus of the working group to begin official balloting?

3. Explanation of 1997 Sponsor Ballot, including purpose, list of voters, and results

The folks who made the complaint about "what happened with the 1997 sponsor ballot" have since stated that they were confused on that point and that they don't have any record of a 1997 sponsor ballot.

In December 1996, the working group chair conducted a working group ballot. In 1997 and in 1998, TC-8 chair Marlyn Miner sent out invitations to be in the IEEE official ballot group.

Questions to consider:

• Should the working group chair or TC-8 chair have contacted the working group members and other interested parties to inform them of 1) the results of the Dec. 1996 WG ballot, and 2) the decision and rationale to begin the IEEE balloting process? Would this have eliminated the confusion?

4. How was Ballot Group chosen? Can we have a list of its members?

Marlyn Miner, then Chair of TC-8, spent over a year, working closely with and exchanging lists with the IEEE-SA staff, forming a "balanced" Ballot Group. It appears that she performed this task with integrity and in an unbiased manner. The highest priority was to make the Ballot Group balanced. For instance, the number of NI and HP employees in the group was strictly limited and equal, and there was approximately equal representation of instrument makers, instrument users, and "general interest" IEEE-SA members.

The March 2000 complaint letter states, "We know of one person whom the TC-8 chair promised could be a member of the balloting group who was omitted." This person was very likely one of two persons administratively removed from the ballot group by the SA in April 1999 because of non-membership or lapsed membership in the SA. It should be noted that the invitations to be on the ballot group explicitly stated that SA membership was required, and a membership application was included in the invitation package.

The SA staff has informed me that it is improper to distribute the list of Ballot Group members, even to other ballot group members. The membership list is only published after the standard is approved.

5. Lack of meetings and communications since 1996

After the February 1996 working group meeting, the group conducted business by e-mail, mail, and phone. This mode of operation was approved in the Feb. 1996 meeting. It appears that the interested parties were kept informed of progress on the draft up to December 1996. From early 1997 until the official ballot in July 1999, the only communication with interested parties appears to be the two invitations to be in the ballot group. Also, there were no TC-8 annual meetings in 1998 or 1999. The TC-8 chairs, Bob Cram and Marlyn Miner, reduced activity mainly due to job pressures, change of job duties, and lack of support from their employer.

Questions to consider:

• The ballot group selection process and related administrative work regrettably dragged on for over two years. Is it expected during that during this ballot preparation process there is not much communication? Should there have been a website or e-mail list with regular progress updates? Would most of these complaints have been avoided if there had been occassional direct communication?

6. Lack of response since 1996 to inquiries and requests for documents

Several individuals have mentioned that their inquiries to the working group chair or TC-8 chair went unanswered during the time since late 1996. For the years 1997 and 1998, there have been various comments that technical complaints and alternative proposals were dismissed or ignored. Note that this was after the final draft had been approved by the working group.

Questions to consider:

• Did the working group chair or TC-8 chair intentionally ignore inquiries? Or did they just not have enough time? Or, were they weary of what they perceived as unethical tactics by the draft's detractors to attempt to slow or halt the balloting process? In a public statement in Dec. 1997, the TC-8 chair Marlyn Miner states "After breaking an IEEE bylaw in a failed attempt to stack the IEEE ballot, it is disturbing that HP now chooses to wage a marketing campaign as a further attempt to derail the high-speed 488 standardization and undermine user confidence and support."

For the year 1999, we have the following from the March 2000 complaint letter from three Agilent employees: 1) "In August 1999, we asked the working group's chairman and sponsor ballot distributor, Robert Canik, for several items, which we never received. He did not even acknowledge the request." and 2) "We asked Mr. Canik to schedule a meeting to resolve the issues raised by the negative ballots. We did not receive a reply."

Questions to consider:

• Why did the working group chair not reply to the inquiries? Were these inquiries relevant at that point in the balloting process, or were some of them suited to the working group process that had ended over two years before? Should the working group chair have at least answered their letters?

(Have copies of the 3 letters at the meeting to read if warranted.)

7. Draft revision numbers mix-up

The official latest draft of P488.1 from the IEEE standards office was erroneously labeled Draft 1.2. It should have read Draft 1.3. This understandably caused confusion.

8. Improper oversight by sponsor committee

Complaints have been made that the working group and its chair ran the P488.1 project without adequate oversight by the sponsor committee, TC-8. I have not found evidence to support this complaint for activities prior to August 1999. Bob Cram of TC-8 was closely involved in the working group, and Marlyn Miner of TC-8 took charge of the official IEEE ballot process. The July 1999 initial official ballot appears to have been run by only TC-8 and the IEEE-SA.

However, after Marlyn Miner resigned from her position in mid 1999, and Bob Cram was unable to devote any time to the project, Robert Canik ran the ballot recirculations, with the negative comments and rebuttals, apparently without oversight. Now that TC-8 is reorganizing, new sponsor-run ballot recirculations will be conducted. Robert Canik authored the original rebuttals, and now the TC-8 committee or a sub-committee will author new rebuttals.

Questions to consider:

• Should the working group chair have informed the balloters of TC-8's inactive status in the cover letter to the ballot recirculations? The rebuttals were entitled "Sponsor Rebuttal to Negative Ballots" and the August 1999 cover letter stated, "Enclosed with this letter is a copy of all comments from negative ballots and a rebuttal by the ballot sponsor." There is no mention that the author of the rebuttals is Robert Canik alone nor that the sponsor committee for the project is TC-8. The phrase "by the ballot sponsor" might have meant to some that the rebuttals were authored by the TC-8 committee.
• The ensuing confusion is illustrated in an August 1999 letter from Robin Steele to Robert Canik stating, "Which people were involved in creating the 'Sponsor Rebuttal to Negative Ballots?' Does this reflect the opinion of the entire working group?" Ms. Steele doesn't even know that the "sponsor" is the TC-8 committee. And she states in her future letter that she received no reply to her question. Should the working group chair have been more forthright about his sole authorship of the rebuttals?

Finally, I should mention that the IEEE Standards Board, in reviewing the complaints made in the formal letter, arrived at the "preliminary finding" that the "paper trail" of the project does not show any evidence of improper procedures, except for the rebuttals to the negative comments in this latest stage of the project.

-- Joe Czapski, Co-Chair TC-8
18 September 2000