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)????


802.3 uses 75% for almost everything that has to do with a draft. The guide 
is that if it affects what is going to be in the draft then it has to stand 
up to voting with a 75% requirement for passage. Ergo (whatever it is or 
however it gets there) it should have 75%.

50% gets used for meeting procedure stuff


At 03:09 PM 4/15/2003 -0600, Roger B. Marks wrote:

>Thanks for this explanation. I appreciate the constructive dialog; it 
>gives me a better perspective on your process.
>It looks like there are a lot of similarities between the 802.3 and 802.16 
>processes. This isn't surprising, since I have learned a lot from the 
>generous advice of 802.3 regulars. In particular, the 802.16 Task Group 
>Review and Working Group Review processes arose only because the 802.3 
>people explained the advantages of the Task Force Review.
>It looks like our approach is quite similar from the point a Working Group 
>Letter Ballot opens. Beforehand, the main difference is when we define a 
>document as a draft and to what extent we distribute it.
>There is one question I've been wondering about but never remembered to 
>ask anyone in 802.3: how do you use the 75% approval rule? Does adoption 
>of a document as D1.0 require 75% approval? At that point, does any change 
>to it require 75% approval? Or are things handled more loosely very early 
>in the process?
>>Herein lies a difference between working groups.  We don't worry about 
>>the semantics of draft / working paper.  We set the bar at technical 
>>completeness as judged by the Working Group.  I strongly support the 
>>position that prior sale of the flaky, incomplete, etc. drafts is an 
>>invitation to disaster.  Very early drafts are available to anyone 
>>interested enough to become a participant in the project to gain some of 
>>the context Geoff talked about.
>>In 802.3, once we have a PAR, we start building the draft.  We include 
>>the IEEE copyright information and keep it in a password protected web 
>>location.  Initially, we are adopting proposals and turning slide ware 
>>into prose, tables and figures.  The document at this point often (but 
>>not always) has obvious gaping holes. Documents at this stage are 
>>typically identified as D1.x.  We may produce documents that are not 
>>distributed to the Task Force (i.e., editor's drafts for use by the 
>>editorial team).
>>On our large projects we will often do a formal task force review. This 
>>is run somewhat like ballot (put out the draft and ask for formal 
>>comments, teach the TF how to use the ballot tools, etc.), except the 
>>entire document is always open for comment.  Sometimes we bump the draft 
>>number to D2.x though we might still be at D1.x (as 802.3ah is currently).
>>When the Task Force believes it is technically complete they request WG 
>>ballot.  We will again bump the major draft number (e.g., D3.x) and start 
>>a formal ballot with the scope of the ballot narrowing during 
>>recirculation on the changes per IEEE balloting rules.  When the WG 
>>ballot is announced, we tell IEEE to offer the draft for sale.  Each 
>>recirculation ballot we offer the new draft for sale. During 
>>recirculation, we typically produce both diffs from the previous draft 
>>and a clean (no change bars) version of the draft.
>>When we enter Sponsor ballot, we again typically bump the major draft 
>>number (e.g., D4.x) following the same procedure as described for WG 
>>ballot.  As a consciousness raising exercise (reinforcing the narrowing 
>>scope of a recirculation), we often only distribute the pages that 
>>actually have changes (e.g., for the current 802.3af recirculation we 
>>only supplied the 34 pages with substantive changes, though the complete 
>>clean version is still available).
>>--Bob Grow
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Roger B. Marks []
>>Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 12:31 PM
>>To: Howard Frazier
>>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)????
>>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 it'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