| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
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
---------------
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:
vichayes@agere.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony
Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent:
Tuesday, April 15, 2003 11:09 AM
To: Hayes, Vic (Vic)
Cc: Grow, Bob;
a.ortiz@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
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:
vichayes@agere.com
>
>
>
>-----Original
Message-----
>From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
>Sent:
Monday, April 14, 2003 9:27 PM
>To: a.ortiz@ieee.org;
stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>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: a.ortiz@ieee.org [mailto:a.ortiz@ieee.org]
>Sent: Monday,
April 14, 2003 11:49 AM
>To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>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:
a.ortiz@ieee.org ><
standards.ieee.org
>
>FOSTERING TECHNOLOGICAL
INNOVATION
Regards,
Tony