|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I am not arguing against the payment issue. In the paper era, it was obvious that the copying needed to be paid for. Now, it is the organizations view of whether the copyright needs to be translated into an income factor or whether the developers want to pay.
In the documentation I could only find a section in the Standards Companion that is in line with my definition. The model sponsor rules are more in line with your definition.
Quote from Standards Companion:
Openness is also a principle that applies throughout standards development. It means ensuring that everyone has access to the process. This is accomplished by making sure that all materially interested and affected parties can participate in your standards development group, and seeing that the results of your deliberations are publicly available. The latter is usually achieved by having readily available minutes of meetings.
The purpose of all this is to avoid the appearance of collusion, or seeming to obstruct anyone from participating. All IEEE working group meetings are open, and anyone may attend if interested. This principle must be employed for every official IEEE meeting. Any person has a right to attend and contribute to IEEE standards meetings.
Openness also provides protection against antitrust situations. Since standards are so broadly used and often carry the weight of law, it is important to allow all parties to participate and be heard to avoid a situation that would imply that any company or individual was restricted from speaking.
Both of these principles should be considered from the very start of your standards process. They are vital to the formation of your working group and the creation of your PAR.
Quote from Model Sponsor rules:
The Secretary shall record and have published minutes of each meeting. [The Treasurer shall maintain a budget and shall control all funds into and out of the sponsor's bank account.]
4.1 Voting Membership
Voting Membership in the Sponsor shall be in accordance with the procedures of the entity that established the Sponsor, or, in the case of a TC with P&P, in accordance with those procedures. In the absence of such procedures, voting membership is open to any materially interested individual who notifies the IEEE Standards Department of his/her interest and provides and maintains contact information, and conforms to the committee rules for attendance and balloting.
I still feel that all drafts need to be available to the public, whether for free or for payment
Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies
3431 JZ Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 1, + 2 during daylight saving time)
FAX: +31 30 609 7556
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 11:09 AM
To: Hayes, Vic (Vic)
Cc: Grow, Bob; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Should all IEEE 802 drafts coming for sale be a
CLEA N file or should they be offered as they come (in the recirculation
case, with changes marked)????
All depends on how you define "openness". Taking your line of argument to
its logical conclusion, to be truly "open", there would be no obstacle
whatever (including financial obstacles) to free & open access to our work,
and so all drafts and published standards should be available to all for
free. This is the position that I hold personally; however, it clearly
isn't the position that the IEEE holds. I suspect that the working
definition of "openness" for the IEEE standards process is much more
limited, and is along the lines that anyone who wishes to do so can
participate in the work, subject to the membership rules of the committee
concerned, and anyone that wishes to read drafts and standards that are
made available during the progress of that work can do so, subject to
payment of any fees that may be due for the privilege.
To my knowledge, the decision as to when a draft should be made available
for sale has always rested with the working group concerned, and is made
when the draft has reached a reasonable level of stability (whatever that
At 04:01 15/04/2003 -0400, Hayes, Vic (Vic) wrote:
>Bob and Angela, SEC members,
>Because the IEEE-SA does have the requirement to be an "Open" Committee, I
>would interpret the question "which drafts are available for sale" to be
>answered as "all drafts, even change page instruction as well as versions
>with change bars".
>As to Bob's indication that they only make drafts available "once we have
>entered WG ballot", I would like to state that they are violating the rules
>Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies
>3431 JZ Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
>Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 1, + 2 during daylight saving time)
>FAX: +31 30 609 7556
>From: Grow, Bob [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 9:27 PM
>To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] Should all IEEE 802 drafts coming for sale be a
>CLEAN file or should they be offered as they come (in the recirculation
>case, with changes marked)????
>It would be great to have an automatic process, but I am not clear on one
>issue. There is no consistent policy on when drafts are made available for
>public sale. In the case of 802.3, we make drafts available once we have
>entered WG ballot. In this case we do not upload drafts to the ballot
>During reciruclation ballots, we might only distribute change pages for the
>ballot. (For example the upload for the current P802.3af/D4.3 recirculation
>ballot included change pages only (about a fourth of the complete draft).
>I believe a clean version is the appropriate version for sale. This is also
>the only consistent thing we do throughout the entire ballot process.
>Because of FrameMaker's limitated diff capabilities, we may change the way
>we produce the change bar version depending on the change volume. Because
>the upload isn't the clean version, and it isn't necessarily complete, an
>automatic process will include staff picking up the complete clean version
>of the draft from the WG private pages. Some questions need to be answered
>for the process to be both comprehensive and automatic.
>1. How does staff learn of first public availability of a project draft?
>2. How will staff learn of WG ballots or new drafts prior to sponsor
>3. Do all WGs produce and post clean versions of documents for every
>4. Do all WGs announce the URL, username and password for the complete
>clean draft on each ballot announcement?
>I support your efforts to make this process automatic, but I will be
>concerned if it doesn't also support sale of drafts prior to sponsor ballot.
>I also think it is important that we be able to invoke this automatic
>process without uploading the complete clean draft. Our voters are able to
>work with pointers to the draft, staff should be equally willing to work
>with the pointer (URL, username and password).
>From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 11:49 AM
>Subject: [802SEC] Should all IEEE 802 drafts coming for sale be a CLEAN
>file or should they be offered as they come (in the recirculation case,
>with changes marked)????
>In our efforts to keep improving the process to make IEEE-802 drafts
>available for sale, there are some things that need clarification.
>Therefore, I will like to raise the following question:
>I understand from Jerry Walker that we do not need to confirm with the WGC
>any longer, if the draft will be made available for sale, but instead, this
>will be a default process, meaning that every time a new or revised draft
>comes, we will make these drafts available for sale.
>With that in mind, I would like to get input from all of you as to which is
>the right thing to do in this case. Hence, please let me know if the
>drafts we will make available for sale, are to be **as they come** (with
>the changes marked) when it comes to recirculations, or if we should make
>*only clean drafts* (without changes marked* available for sale.
>Please let us know as we are streamlining this process, of making IEEE-802
>drafts available for sale in a timely manner, especially since this process
>is so important for all of us, especially for our customers.
>Please keep in mind that the prompt input from every WGC, regarding drafts
>coming for recirculations, is needed and very much appreciated.
>Program Manager - Technical Program Development
>IEEE Standards, 445 Hoes Lane,
>Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331 USA
>Telephone: 1732-562-3809 >< Fax: 1732-562-1571
>E-m: email@example.com >< standards.ieee.org
>FOSTERING TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION