[802SEC] FW: Report on CS SAB meeting
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 4:48 PM
To: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: BOUNCE stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org: Non-member submission from
["Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>]
From owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org Wed Nov 7 19:47:51 2001
Received: from dnvrpop8.dnvr.uswest.net (gemini3.ieee.org [140.98.193.25])
by ruebert.ieee.org (Switch-2.1.0/Switch-2.1.0) with SMTP id
fA80loj22032
for <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 19:47:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 12403 invoked by uid 0); 8 Nov 2001 00:47:49 -0000
Received: from edslppp95.dnvr.uswest.net (HELO ?10.0.0.4?) (216.160.165.95)
by dnvrpop8.dnvr.uswest.net with SMTP; 8 Nov 2001 00:47:49 -0000
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 17:47:53 -0700
Message-Id: <p04310124b80e1e49f219@[132.163.48.122]>
From: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: rogermarks@mail.mac.com
Subject: Report on CS SAB meeting
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Dear SEC:
Jim asked me to represent LMSC at yesterday's Computer Society SAB
meeting. Here is a report on relevant issues. It's mostly in the
meeting's chronological order, and some interesting stuff is at
bottom.
*Attendance was low (Lowell Johnson [Chair], John Walz [Secy], Jim
Moore, Jack Cole, John Daniel [CS Staff], Roger Marks, Fiorenza
Albert-Howard, Jim Isaak [afternoon only], and (briefly) Steve
Diamond. Gary Robinson, Paul Eastman, and Don Wright called in for an
hour or two.
*The CS announced their new Executive Director (David Hennage)
yesterday
<http://computer.org/computer/connection/october01/exec_dir.pdf>. He
came by to meet the SAB and made a good impression.
*Lowell said that only six of the twelve sponsors turned in a report,
and none by the deadline. Because they were late, they didn't get
into the huge Agenda Book used for the CS Board of Governors meeting.
It seemed to me that Jim turned the LMSC report in on time, but I
didn't have hard facts on this.
*Gary Robinson gave a Treasurer's report by phone. He noted that all
Sponsors do their finances differently. An LMSC audit is underway and
he expects to discuss it with Bob Grow next week in Austin. Lowell
noted that the CS seems to think that SAB is seeing income from
Sponsors; he is trying to educate them otherwise. Also, the JTC1 TAG
seems to be expecting $35K from IEEE, but the CS does not seem to be
offering anything.
*Jim Isaak led an agenda item on "how to get IEEE to invest in
marketing IEEE standards." The emphasis was not on selling books but
on urging industry to participate in the process and adopt the
results. He indicated that IEEE staff could help in coordinating
success-story articles in the trade press. We discussed the effect of
the GetIEEE802 program. I mentioned its value in introducing our work
into academic environments, and Jim agreed. I mentioned articles I've
written on 802 standards (and later sent Jim hyperlinks to them), but
the focus is on other Sponsors more in need of publicity. I mentioned
the recent USA Today article on Bill Gates and 802.11. People were
very interested. Lowell asked for an email on this topic; I sent it.
There was discussion about putting a list of this kind of publicity
on the CS web site. John Daniel intends to work on it.
*Jim Isaak and Jack Cole had an action item "to prepare for IEEE-USA
a technical information statement on US Gov't use of voluntary,
consensus standards." Jim Carlo is listed as having a relevant paper
to submit. I added my name and emailed a hyperlink to a recent paper
of mine on the topic.
*Jack Cole is active in an effort on Information Assurance. Some
government agencies would like to see a standard. Jack had a draft
Scope and Purpose statement that might go into a PAR. The focus there
is on "Certificate Issuing and Management Components" of a Public Key
Infrastructure (PKI). This would be relevant within 802 (certainly
within 802.16). In order to get this project going quickly, the SAB
passed a motion to form an information assurance study group under
the SAB.
*There has apparently been a lot of consternation on the issue of
voting and the meaning of consensus within a Working Group. This
results from a complaint from a participant in some Working Group to
high levels in IEEE-SA (or maybe even IEEE) about the outcome of a
Working Group vote. The ramifications are ugly, but I won't comment
because it's all hearsay to me. In any case, this issue has driven
the SAB to try and elucidate some procedures. The intent is to
provide only "default" processes for Working Groups that have none.
Jim Isaak led discussion of some changes to the Policies and
Procedures. There were major changes to the version that had
circulated before the meeting. Jim Isaak will edit the document and
forward it to "interested people" with an attempt to complete it this
week. By the end of November, Lowell intends to announce a 30-day
letter ballot.
*The discussion above led to the issue of precedence of rules. The
SAB P&P mistakenly puts Sponsor Policies and Procedures below
Robert's Rules of Order; this will be fixed. But there was also
concern about when Sponsor Rules should take precedence over SAB
rules, and how to structure the SAB P&P to make this possible. There
was no clear answer, but one proposal was to include a statement in
the SAB P&P saying that, when the SAB approves the P&P of a Sponsor,
the Sponsor P&P is incorporated into the SAB rules as applicable to
that Sponsor.
*The assumption of this discussion is that Sponsor P&Ps are always
approved by the SAB. So I asked if the SAB has recently reviewed the
LMSC rules. I was told that the SAB has not seen any rules changes
from LMSC in a long time. Any rules changes we make should be sent to
the SAB for approval. Otherwise, we run the risk of a problem.
(Subsequently, I looked in the SAB P&P to find the requirement that
Sponsor P&Ps need to be approved. I didn't find this explicitly; the
closest I could find was this statement: "the SAB is responsible for
... oversight responsibility for all standards activities to assure
conformance to approved policies and procedures".)
*I asked about this item in the SAB Policies and Procedures:
"4.3 Document Availability: All interested persons shall be permitted
to obtain all committee documents, including draft standards prior to
approval by the IEEESB." I was told that this means that I am
_required_ to offer drafts upon request of an interested party. To
me, this means that, if IEEE does not offer the draft for sale, I am
obligated to provide it myself. (This is important to me, since I
have been concerned about delays in putting drafts into the catalog.)
I wonder if this clause also means that an interested party is
entitled to a free copy. I don't think so.
*Since the autumn of 1999, the SAB has this role: "To approve
'un-named' Computer Society Service Awards based on criteria approved
by SAB and notified to the CS awards committee." It seems that these
are the Service Awards <http://computer.org/awards/#servaward>.
Specifically, the SAB would like to award a Certificate of
Appreciation to active Working Group participants following the
publication of a standard. The SAB would like the Sponsors, like
LMSC, to be more active in making use of these awards for their
members. (I just looked up the process, and it's not too bad, but
charges are involved. Who would pay these?)
*SAB Meetings in 2002
-Feb 5 at Sheraton World Hotel Orlando
-May 7 at Doubletree Columbia River in Portland OR
-Sept 10: telecon (at Stds Board mtg) 10-12 am ET
-Nov. 4 at Hyatt Harborside Boston
Roger