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)????
Howard -
I agree.
Regards,
Tony
At 11:48 15/04/2003 -0700, Howard Frazier wrote:
> > With this rule available, I do not believe that there is any doubt for
> > Angela to strongly push for streamlining the process to make ALL draft
> > standards available.
>
>
>I would be vehemently opposed to any such policy, and I do
>not believe that the CS rules require us to make rough, ragged,
>early, incomplete, inaccurate, erroneous, half-baked,
>non-sensical, premature, flaky, not-worth-the-pixels-they're
>displayed-in, drafts available for sale.
>
>We have a duty as members of a professional society to produce
>professional quality work. Our early attempts at creating
>a draft standard may represent our best efforts at the time,
>but they clearly do not represent anything close to the final
>completed work. We do not want to disseminate false information,
>or set false expectations. We are already grappling with the
>problem of claims of conformance to draft documents, and this
>problem would only get worse if all of our early work was
>disseminated to the public.
>
>For these reasons, I strongly support the policy of making
>drafts available only after they have been issued in the form
>of a WG ballot. This should be the norm. I have consulted
>with some members of the IEEE-SA staff, and this is their
>current understanding of our policy, and they think it is
>sensible. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis.
>
>Howard Frazier
>
>Hayes, Vic (Vic) wrote:
>
>>Roger,
>>
>>Thanks for finding the rule (at the Computer Society) I was looking for
>>but could not find at the SA site. .
>>
>>With this rule available, I do not believe that there is any doubt for
>>Angela to strongly push for streamlining the process to make ALL draft
>>standards available.
>>
>>I would like to encourage all WG chairs to ensure that the draft is for
>>sale at the time it would also be available to the members.
>>
>>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: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 6:01 PM
>> To: Hayes, Vic (Vic)
>> Cc: 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)????
>> Vic,
>>
>> I thoroughly agree with your emphasis on the principles of openness.
>>
>> In my view, the rules that 802 needs to follow on this are actually
>> quite simple. They come from the Policies and Procedures of the IEEE
>> Computer Society
>> Standards Activities Board
>> <http://www.computer.org/standards/ORIENT/p&ptoc.htm>:
>>
>>> 4.3 Document Availability
>>
>>> All interested persons shall be permitted to obtain all committee
>>> documents, including draft standards prior to approval by the IEEESB.
>>
>> IEEE 802.16 has always followed this policy. We request that our
>> drafts be made available for sale by IEEE. If, for whatever reason,
>> an interested party cannot purchase a draft from IEEE, then we
>> provide it directly.
>>
>> Roger
>>
>> At 5:54 AM -0400 03/04/15, Hayes, Vic (Vic) wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 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: 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
>
>
Regards,
Tony