| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I believe Michael was very clear that he is referring to “complaints” that were registered and
not any subsequent discussion or the outcome of any ANSI investigation (if any) or action. I am not speaking for ANSI but I will note that all previous complaints and appeals were addressed by ANSI and NO action was taken against IEEE accreditation.
In several cases there were appeals by complainants that were rejected. Please ask ANSI directly if you want information on those cases. Anyone can register a complaint on just about any subject they feel passionate about. Everyone should also understand that there may be countervailing arguments and the institution has its own process to reach a determination (if a determination
is even necessary). People are welcome to have their opinions and I just hope that everyone understands the difference between having an opinion and that opinion gaining traction with others or an institution’s response. From: Michael Atlass <matlass@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Email to IEEE PP-Dialog Regarding the consideration of item 6.3 of the ProCom agenda.
The preamble to the document does not address the items complained of in ANSI. It seems unproductive and perhaps unreasonable for the IEEE to indicate that it has responded via OpsMan adjustments to the complaints in the re-accreditation
challenge when it has not. If the SA feels that it should simply not address those complaints, it should say so rather than suggest that it has done so when it has not.
The distillation to two questions in the preamble is misleading because the objections were not limited to A) clarity about whether there can be multiple OS projects with different licenses and B) that normative dated references are not
permitted or misleading. This distillation is not consistent with complaints described by the complainants. Yet, those two areas are all that is identified in the document for item 6.3 of the ProCom agenda. After reading the complaints, I noted that among the substantive complaint areas highlighted were
1) lack of fairness in balancing the interests of stakeholders interested in contributing to OS projects,
2) imposing as an impediment to participate in OS projects an exclusionary requirement to make royalty free patent grants by executing a CLA, which may include terms that may be contrary to the member’s commitment under an LOA to the IPR
policy (and I observe that OpsMan 6.5.5.2 that appears to be contrary to the requirements of IEEE SA bylaws 6.2),
3) a requirement of adherence to OS license terms that contain commercial terms (contrary to ANSI ER 3.2.1),
4) no ability to opt out of SEP patent license obligations (as per ANSI Guidelines), and
5) inability to share views and objections or additional content into the OS project even when it’s part of the normative elements of the standard, because of the requirement to first execute a CLA with royalty free terms. Best regards, Michael. From:
Dave Ringle <d.ringle@xxxxxxxx> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
the organization. The 05 August 2021 ProCom agenda is available at https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/governance/procom/agenda.pdf ****************************************************************** To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1 To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1 To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1 |