RE: [802SEC] Should all IEEE 802 drafts coming for sale be aCLEAN file or should they be offered as they come (in the recirculationcase, with changes marked)????
Title: RE: [802SEC] Should all IEEE 802 drafts coming for
I thoroughly agree with your emphasis on the principles of
In my view, the rules that 802 needs to follow on this are
actually quite simple. They come from the Policies and Procedures of
the IEEE Computer Society
Standards Activities Board
4.3 Document Availability
All interested persons shall be permitted
to obtain all committee documents, including draft standards prior to
approval by the IEEESB.
IEEE 802.16 has always followed this policy. We request that our
drafts be made available for sale by IEEE. If, for whatever reason, an
interested party cannot purchase a draft from IEEE, then we provide it
At 5:54 AM -0400 03/04/15, Hayes, Vic (Vic) wrote:
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
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
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
FAX: +31 30 609 7556
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 11:09 AM
To: Hayes, Vic (Vic)
Cc: Grow, Bob; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Should all IEEE 802 drafts coming for sale be
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
whatever (including financial obstacles) to free & open access to
and so all drafts and published standards should be available to all
free. This is the position that I hold personally; however, it
isn't the position that the IEEE holds. I suspect that the working
definition of "openness" for the IEEE standards process is
limited, and is along the lines that anyone who wishes to do so
participate in the work, subject to the membership rules of the
concerned, and anyone that wishes to read drafts and standards that
made available during the progress of that work can do so, subject
payment of any fees that may be due for the privilege.
To my knowledge, the decision as to when a draft should be made
for sale has always rested with the working group concerned, and is
when the draft has reached a reasonable level of stability (whatever
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"
>would interpret the question "which drafts are available for
sale" to be
>answered as "all drafts, even change page instruction as well
>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
>FAX: +31 30 609 7556
>From: Grow, Bob [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 9:27 PM
>To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] Should all IEEE 802 drafts coming for sale
>CLEAN file or should they be offered as they come (in the
>case, with changes marked)????
>It would be great to have an automatic process, but I am not clear
>issue. There is no consistent policy on when drafts are made
>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
>During reciruclation ballots, we might only distribute change
pages for the
>ballot. (For example the upload for the current
>ballot included change pages only (about a fourth of the complete
>I believe a clean version is the appropriate version for sale.
This is also
>the only consistent thing we do throughout the entire ballot
>Because of FrameMaker's limitated diff capabilities, we may change
>we produce the change bar version depending on the change volume.
>the upload isn't the clean version, and it isn't necessarily
>automatic process will include staff picking up the complete clean
>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
>2. How will staff learn of WG ballots or new drafts prior to
>3. Do all WGs produce and post clean versions of documents
>4. Do all WGs announce the URL, username and password for
>clean draft on each ballot announcement?
>I support your efforts to make this process automatic, but I will
>concerned if it doesn't also support sale of drafts prior to
>I also think it is important that we be able to invoke this
>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: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 11:49 AM
>Subject: [802SEC] Should all IEEE 802 drafts coming for sale be a
>file or should they be offered as they come (in the recirculation
>with changes marked)????
>In our efforts to keep improving the process to make IEEE-802
>available for sale, there are some things that need
>Therefore, I will like to raise the following question:
>I understand from Jerry Walker that we do not need to confirm with
>any longer, if the draft will be made available for sale, but
>will be a default process, meaning that every time a new or
>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
>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
>the changes marked) when it comes to recirculations, or if
we should make
>*only clean drafts* (without changes marked* available for
>Please let us know as we are streamlining this process, of making
>drafts available for sale in a timely manner, especially since
>is so important for all of us, especially for our customers.
>Please keep in mind that the prompt input from every WGC,
>coming for recirculations, is needed and very much
>Program Manager - Technical Program Development
>IEEE Standards, 445 Hoes Lane,
>Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331 USA
>Telephone: 1732-562-3809 >< Fax:
>E-m: firstname.lastname@example.org ><
>FOSTERING TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION