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 aCLEAN file or should they be offered as they come (in the recirculationcase, with changes marked)????


I infer from your response that:

(1) you do not approve of the 802.16 avoiding the use of the term 
"draft" until we are at the WG Letter Ballot phase;

(2) we are generally in agreement that, at the time a document goes 
to WG Letter Ballot, it is typically ready for sale by IEEE.

If I misunderstood, please let me know.



At 12:53 PM -0700 03/04/15, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>The problem with your semantics is precisely that, they are YOUR semantics.
>In 802.3 anything with adopted content is a "draft". A draft is not 
>(formally) judged for completeness until it is presented to the WG 
>as a candidate for WG ballot. There is no such entity as a 
>"committee document".
>In that vein, something that has been approved by the WG as meeting 
>the criteria for WG ballot is sufficiently mature to go outside the 
>committee (although we do sometimes provide earlier drafts to 
>liaison organizations).
>In 802.1 they start WG ballots on highly incomplete documents (They 
>are drafts with draft numbers). To my mind it is not constructive to 
>present those early documents as useful documents to the outside 
>At 01:30 PM 4/15/2003 -0600, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>>Let's talk practically and see where our traditions agree and where 
>>they don't. Our normal approach is that the motion to adopt a first 
>>draft and the motion to open a WG Letter Ballot go hand in hand. We 
>>password-protect the draft and put it up for sale.
>>If our document is not worth the pixels it's displayed in, we don't 
>>call it a draft. We might circulate it (under some kind of Call for 
>>Comments, which we might call a Task Group Review or Working Group 
>>Review), but we are careful to NOT call it a draft. We normally 
>>call it a "Working Document", and we label it carefully that way.
>>So, regarding the sale of drafts, I think that semantics play a role here.
>>  >From my perspective, we don't label a document as Draft 1 until we think
>>t's ready for WG Letter Ballot and are not embarrassed to have IEEE sell it.
>>If a Working Document isn't ready to be a draft, it's still a 
>>"committee document" and, as I read CS rules, we must make it 
>>available to "all interested persons." So we do.
>>At 11:48 AM -0700 03/04/15, 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:
>>>>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.
>>>>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
>>>>     -----Original Message-----
>>>>     From: Roger B. Marks []
>>>>     Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 6:01 PM
>>>>     To: Hayes, Vic (Vic)
>>>>     Cc:
>>>>     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
>>>>     <>:
>>>>>     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:
>>>>>     -----Original Message-----
>>>>>     From: Tony Jeffree []
>>>>>     Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 11:09 AM
>>>>>     To: Hayes, Vic (Vic)
>>>>>     Cc: Grow, Bob;;
>>>>>     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:
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     >-----Original Message-----
>>>>>     >From: Grow, Bob []
>>>>>     >Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 9:27 PM
>>>>>     >To:;
>>>>>     >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: []
>>>>>     >Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 11:49 AM
>>>>>     >To:
>>>>>     >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:   ><
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     Regards,
>>>>>     Tony