Re: [802SEC] New Model for IEEE Standards Maintenance
Hello James,
I think I'd go further than that. IMHO, any complex amendment
is likely to contain errors that make a strict interpretation of its
editing instructions impossible. (e.g. I'm just about to roll in a
400-page amendment #8.)
When a revision is active, the editor can highlight these inconsistencies/conflicts
either to the group responsible for making changes, or to the balloters by comments
in the draft revision.
I'm not sure how this should be treated in the case of an Edition.
If the editor is aware of a conflict, should he highlight this, or silently
ignore it?
This is separate from the question of whether the editor correctly interpreted
the instructions in the amendment.
Best Regards,
Adrian P STEPHENS
Tel: +44 1954 204 609 (office)
Tel: +44 792 008 4900 (mobile)
Skype: adrian_stephens
----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 12:54 AM
To: Grow, Bob
Cc: tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] New Model for IEEE Standards Maintenance
All
The only issue I have with editions is that they should still have some
technical review to make sure that no mistakes were made.
Although we try hard, when you have 3 amendments modifying the same
location in a base standard, it may take some technical expertise to
make sure everything came out right.
It could be as simple as the Sponsor assigning a group of reviewers to
assist the editors. Then it could be a simple approval by the Sponsor
that based on the opinion of the reviewers, the edition is OK for
publication.
James Gilb
On 02/02/2011 09:01 AM, Grow, Bob wrote:
> Tony:
>
> I have been working with publication staff on publishing all amendments, corrigenda and errata as editions. Publication staff has been generally favorable to this, the only identified negative is product pricing (why do I have to pay for all 3500 pages of 802.3 when I already have it and only want the new 50 pages).
>
> If you or others are interested, I can provide details on what I've proposed. I'm certainly willing to accept support, and constructive criticism as well for any IEEE-SA participants.
>
> Your proposal to do editions at least every three mitigates the pricing issue because a revision presents the same situation.
>
> --Bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 4:03 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [802SEC] New Model for IEEE Standards Maintenance
>
> Reflecting on this new model, I have a couple of observations.
>
> As I said on the conference call, I don't believe that the changes as
> outlined are of any great benefit (or dis-benefit for that matter) to 802,
> which seems to be a wasted opportunity when I believe that a simple change
> COULD be made that would actually be of benefit.
>
> I have never understood the point of the 3-year revision rule - apparently
> it is OK to have a gozillion amendments approved in years 1-3 after a
> revision, and all is OK for those 3 years, but suddenly at the end of year
> 3, it is not-OK anymore. That makes no sense to me whatever, and will make
> even less sense once the revision cycle moves to 10 years.
>
> What would make far more sense to me would be to lose the 3-year revision
> rule, and instead, impose a requirement to produce an Edition when there are
> N amendments (where N probably equals 3) that haven't previously been
> incorporated into a revision or an edition. That would materially improve my
> situation in 802.1, as it would remove an arbitrary requirement to revise
> after 3 years when an editorial roll-up would be entirely sufficient to the
> needs both of the readership and the WG. Producing editions on a regular
> basis is in any case something that I try to do with 802.1Q already.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.