| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Thanks Michael and Earl. It was not my intention to introduce issues not presented. I was not aware of the second complaint to ANSI seeking to disaccredit IEEE-SA, which Michael referred to in his original comment. I was aware of the
first, which seemed to me to be a waste of IEEE-SA’s (and ANSI’s) time and resources. I don’t think it’s unfair to encourage people to reflect on whether they are comfortable with representatives of companies that initiated that complaint being in leadership
positions in the Standards Association. As we all know, or should know, actions have consequences. Returning to the second ANSI complaint, knowing more would help me, at least, understand Michael’s original intervention. If there is some reason that facts about that complaint need to remain confidential, please let me know. If not,
it would be helpful if information about the complaint that Michael chose to refer to could be shared with the list. Michael is alleging that the text proposed for the Operations Manual does not adequately address concerns that some (unknown, at least to
me) companies raised at ANSI concerning IEEE-SA. I hope it is not unreasonable to ask for more context regarding the substance of those concerns. Best regards, Gil From: Nied, Earl <earl.nied@xxxxxxxxx> I agree with Michael’s statement: “I suspect we are all uncomfortable if this mail list is used to reprise issues not presented,.” Several of the “complaints” I saw brought before ANSI had nothing to do with ANSI or ANSI’s involvement in IEEE. I do respect that there are different points of view on subject being
discussed but this is not an ANSI forum and the discussions here should be limited to IEEE. From: Michael Atlass <matlass@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
I certainly appreciate Earl’s response, refocusing this discussion on what was intended. The concern I had expressed was about how item 6.3 does not address what it says it intends
to. I suspect we are all uncomfortable if this mail list is used to reprise issues not presented, or to cast aspersions on companies or other participants in IEEE activities, or to politic
for or against candidates. I was surprised by Gil’s apparent failure to know what was happening in ANSI related to which item 6.3 was indicated to have been directed. I have worked with him many years discussing
IPR and OS issues in both ANSI and IEEE. Both Gil and Earl have participated in both organizations, and I do appreciate Earl’s refocus on the questions I had raised. IEEE SA received comments from ANSI Public Review commenter(s) about the Open Source revisions to the IEEE SA Standards Board Operations
Manual. The comments are summarized below: 1)It is not clear that a Working Group can have multiple Standards Open Source Projects, and that the Projects can
have different licenses. 2)Changes to normative dated references are not permitted, so the language allowing changes to a dated reference
by IEEE to address “the secure and productive operation of the IEEE Open Source Platform” is misleading. Proposed updates to Clause 6.5 of the SASB OpMan are shown below. When I think about the risk IEEE runs by not addressing how to incentivize patent inventors and owners to contribute more to standards, it reminds me of something Robert Kennedy said*
when campaigning for NY Senator, “Some men see things as they are and say, why; I dream things that never were and say, why not.” So I will end with these questions. Why won’t we frankly address how to make it easier to include inventive contributions from
some of the most inventive entities in the world in our OpsMan rules on using Open Source in IEEE standards? Why instead do we apparently intend to focus only on a too-narrow distillation of issues (the reproduced 6.3 preface or “summary” above) that shies
away from the actual concerns? I think ProCom is a reasonable place to attempt to start driving toward improving IEEE’s OS rules by understanding how they affect all stakeholders and looking to improve to benefit
all, rather than create and live by rules that tend to divide IEEE into factions.
Best regards,
Michael. * https://www.bartleby.com/73/465.html
From:
Gil Ohana (gilohana) <00000b67ee67ba19-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
the organization. Thank you Earl. Your point about complaints is well taken. I’m still trying to understand what the substance of what seems to be the second recent effort to cause ANSI to disaccredit IEEE-SA. I know that the first effort, prompted by
the adoption of the 2015 updates to the Patent Policy, was unsuccessful, though I’m sure it took IEEE-SA staff and counsel a lot of time and created a lot of expenses that might have been better used to advance the mission of the Standards Association. I
don’t know as much about the second effort, including which companies participated (directly or through agents), what was the basis of their effort to cause ANSI to disaccredit IEEE-SA, and what ANSI decided. If Michael (or others) can provide any information
about that, I would be grateful, and it would help me make sense of Michael’s earlier intervention. Best regards, Gil From: Nied, Earl <earl.nied@xxxxxxxxx>
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 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 |