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

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)????




Howard -

I agree.

Regards,
Tony

At 11:48 15/04/2003 -0700, Howard Frazier wrote:


> > With this rule available, I do not believe that there is any doubt for
> > Angela to strongly push for streamlining the process to make ALL draft
> > standards available.
>
>
>I would be vehemently opposed to any such policy, and I do
>not believe that the CS rules require us to make rough, ragged,
>early, incomplete, inaccurate, erroneous, half-baked,
>non-sensical, premature, flaky, not-worth-the-pixels-they're
>displayed-in, drafts available for sale.
>
>We have a duty as members of a professional society to produce
>professional quality work.  Our early attempts at creating
>a draft standard may represent our best efforts at the time,
>but they clearly do not represent anything close to the final
>completed work.  We do not want to disseminate false information,
>or set false expectations.  We are already grappling with the
>problem of claims of conformance to draft documents, and this
>problem would only get worse if all of our early work was
>disseminated to the public.
>
>For these reasons, I strongly support the policy of making
>drafts available only after they have been issued in the form
>of a WG ballot.  This should be the norm.  I have consulted
>with some members of the IEEE-SA staff, and this is their
>current understanding of our policy, and they think it is
>sensible. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis.
>
>Howard Frazier
>
>Hayes, Vic (Vic) wrote:
>
>>Roger,
>>
>>Thanks for finding the rule (at the Computer Society) I was looking for 
>>but could not find at the SA site. .
>>
>>With this rule available, I do not believe that there is any doubt for 
>>Angela to strongly push for streamlining the process to make ALL draft 
>>standards available.
>>
>>I would like to encourage all WG chairs to ensure that the draft is for 
>>sale at the time it would also be available to the members.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>---------------
>>Vic Hayes
>>Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies
>>Zadelstede 1-10
>>3431 JZ  Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
>>Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 1, + 2 during daylight saving time)
>>FAX: +31 30 609 7556
>>e-mail: vichayes@agere.com
>>     -----Original Message-----
>>     From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>>     Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 6:01 PM
>>     To: Hayes, Vic (Vic)
>>     Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.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)????
>>     Vic,
>>
>>     I thoroughly agree with your emphasis on the principles of openness.
>>
>>     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
>>     <http://www.computer.org/standards/ORIENT/p&ptoc.htm>:
>>
>>>     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 directly.
>>
>>     Roger
>>
>>     At 5:54 AM -0400 03/04/15, Hayes, Vic (Vic) wrote:
>>
>>>     Tony,
>>>
>>>     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.]
>>>     and
>>>     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
>>
>>>
>>
>>>     Regards
>>
>>>
>>>     ---------------
>>>     Vic Hayes
>>>     Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies
>>>     Zadelstede 1-10
>>>     3431 JZ  Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
>>>     Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 1, + 2 during daylight
>>>     saving time)
>>>     FAX: +31 30 609 7556
>>>     e-mail: vichayes@agere.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     -----Original Message-----
>>>     From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
>>>     Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 11:09 AM
>>>     To: Hayes, Vic (Vic)
>>>     Cc: Grow, Bob; a.ortiz@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>>>     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)????
>>>
>>>
>>>     Vic -
>>>
>>>     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
>>>     might mean).
>>>
>>>     Regards,
>>>     Tony
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     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
>>>     >for openness.
>>>     >
>>>     >Regards
>>>     >
>>>     >---------------
>>>     >Vic Hayes
>>>     >Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies
>>>     >Zadelstede 1-10
>>>     >3431 JZ  Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
>>>     >Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 1, + 2 during daylight
>>>     saving time)
>>>     >FAX: +31 30 609 7556
>>>     >e-mail: vichayes@agere.com
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >-----Original Message-----
>>>     >From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
>>>     >Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 9:27 PM
>>>     >To: a.ortiz@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.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)????
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >Angela:
>>>     >
>>>     >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
>>>     >center.
>>>     >
>>>     >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
>>>     >ballot?
>>>     >3.  Do all WGs produce and post clean versions of documents for every
>>>     >recirculation?
>>>     >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).
>>>     >
>>>     >--Bob Grow
>>>     >
>>>     >-----Original Message-----
>>>     >From: a.ortiz@ieee.org [mailto:a.ortiz@ieee.org]
>>>     >Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 11:49 AM
>>>     >To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>>>     >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)????
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >Hello All:
>>>     >
>>>     >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.
>>>     >
>>>     >Regards,
>>>     >
>>>     >Angela Ortiz
>>>     >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:  a.ortiz@ieee.org   ><   standards.ieee.org
>>>     >
>>>     >FOSTERING TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
>>>
>>>     Regards,
>>>     Tony
>
>

Regards,
Tony