Re: [802SEC] Should all IEEE 802 drafts coming for sale be aCLEAN file or should they be offered as they come (in the recirculationcase, with changes marked)????
Geoff,
I infer from your response that:
(1) you do not approve of the 802.16 avoiding the use of the term
"draft" until we are at the WG Letter Ballot phase;
(2) we are generally in agreement that, at the time a document goes
to WG Letter Ballot, it is typically ready for sale by IEEE.
If I misunderstood, please let me know.
Thanks,
Roger
At 12:53 PM -0700 03/04/15, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>Roger-
>
>The problem with your semantics is precisely that, they are YOUR semantics.
>
>In 802.3 anything with adopted content is a "draft". A draft is not
>(formally) judged for completeness until it is presented to the WG
>as a candidate for WG ballot. There is no such entity as a
>"committee document".
>In that vein, something that has been approved by the WG as meeting
>the criteria for WG ballot is sufficiently mature to go outside the
>committee (although we do sometimes provide earlier drafts to
>liaison organizations).
>
>In 802.1 they start WG ballots on highly incomplete documents (They
>are drafts with draft numbers). To my mind it is not constructive to
>present those early documents as useful documents to the outside
>world.
>
>Geoff
>
>At 01:30 PM 4/15/2003 -0600, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>
>>Howard,
>>
>>Let's talk practically and see where our traditions agree and where
>>they don't. Our normal approach is that the motion to adopt a first
>>draft and the motion to open a WG Letter Ballot go hand in hand. We
>>password-protect the draft and put it up for sale.
>>
>>If our document is not worth the pixels it's displayed in, we don't
>>call it a draft. We might circulate it (under some kind of Call for
>>Comments, which we might call a Task Group Review or Working Group
>>Review), but we are careful to NOT call it a draft. We normally
>>call it a "Working Document", and we label it carefully that way.
>>
>>So, regarding the sale of drafts, I think that semantics play a role here.
>> >From my perspective, we don't label a document as Draft 1 until we think
>>t's ready for WG Letter Ballot and are not embarrassed to have IEEE sell it.
>>
>>If a Working Document isn't ready to be a draft, it's still a
>>"committee document" and, as I read CS rules, we must make it
>>available to "all interested persons." So we do.
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>
>>
>>At 11:48 AM -0700 03/04/15, 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