Re: [802SEC] +++10 day ECM (Early Close)+++ Views on IEEE-SA Copyright P

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

George,

I really appreciate your thoughtful review and comments. I agree with most of them. The statement could certainly be crisper, and some of the language could be softened without affecting the analysis.

Nevertheless, I am voting Approve, because I think that the LMSC Chair, using the editorial license of the motion, could smooth any bluntness. I think it's important to get the word out that it's possible to satisfy the IEEE's needs without introducing serious procedural roadblocks.

At this point, under the Early Close procedure, the ballot "may be closed early" because sufficient response has been received to determine that the ballot has failed, per the accounting below. If someone else wants to vote before the deadline, or if I've made an error, then I'll provide an updated table. Otherwise, the table below will be the ballot summary.

Member Role	Member	Voting Member	APP	DIS	ABS	DNV
CH	Paul Nikolich	1				1
VC1	James PK Gilb	1		1		0
VC2	Roger Marks	1	1			0
TR	George Zimmerman	1		1		0
RS	John D'Ambrosia	1		1		0
ES	Jon W Rosdahl	1		1		0
1	Glenn Parsons/John Messenger	1				1
3	David Law	1		1		0
11	Dorothy Stanley	1		1		0
15	Bob Heile	1	1			0
16-H	Roger Marks
18	Jay Holcomb	1			1	0
19	Steve Shellhammer	1				1
21-H	Subir Das
22	Apurva Mody	1			1	0
24	Tim Godfrey	1				1
ME	Geoffrey Thompson
ME	Clint Chaplin
Totals		14	2	6	2	4

On Aug 27, 2019, 10:24 AM -0600, George Zimmerman <george@cmephyconsulting.com>, wrote:

Roger – I vote disapprove.

I was going to abstain, but after much thought, and a little offline discussion, I’ve decided not to.

Not that I’m not sympathetic to the points in the letter, I just think we may be able to make more headway through other channels, and that the letter, as written, might actually close minds to our thoughts.

When we use language like “impractical and largely nonsensical”, or “makes no sense whatsoever”, and “utterly impractical”, I’m concerned that ears and minds close to our opinions. While using hyperbole is sometimes effective, it seems out of place in this form.

Further, the discussion seems to lose its main points – that we need a flexible process which allows for varying context of use and verbal contributions – by the way it is constructed. We launch into the discussion with what doesn’t seem the main point – a dissertation on ‘previously published’ – which focuses on what I wouldn’t consider a ‘reasonable man’s’ interpretation of the term, and the discussion is more legalistic than practical. This discussion ends up with a proposed definition/understanding, which is practical and sensical ("Previously Published" shall mean material that existed in the “Published” state prior to its submission to IEEE), and might be better off it it went straight to the proposed understanding – simply stating this definition is our understanding and that it would be helpful to have it in the policy. Such an approach would be shorter, and preferable, instead of detracting from what is likely the more important, operable example of what constitutes fair use (‘context for usage’).

The closing of the letter, seems to strike a more useful tone, suggesting a pause and help, if the reader ever gets to it with his or her mind still open. I would, perhaps, be supportive of a shorter, less caustically-worded letter which addressed the same basic points.

-george

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org> On Behalf Of Roger Marks
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 1:08 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] +++10 day ECM (Early Close)+++ Views on IEEE-SA Copyright Procedures

Dear LMSC,

The message announces a 10-day LMSC ballot on "Views on IEEE-SA Copyright Procedures." The LMSC Chair has designated to me to conduct this ballot.

• Motion: Approve delivery of the document "Draft Views on IEEE-SA Copyright Procedures" <https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/19/ec-19-0141-00-00EC.docx>, granting editorial license to the LMSC Chair.

Moved: Roger Marks

Seconded: Bob Heile

Start of ballot: 2019-08-19

Close of ballot: 2019-08-29 AOE

Information:

(1) This document was discussed at the 802 Task Force of 19 July, with the minutes reporting: "IEEE-SA Copyright Policy presentation reviewed from webinar--Action Item: Roger to lead collection comments from the EC to develop communication and recommended copyright slide set updates endorsed by the 802 EC to the IEEE SASB." It was subsequently discussed at the 802 LMSC meeting of 20 July. The EC membership was solicited for participation, and the resulting ad hoc group generated this draft and the followup plan.

(2) We have been requested to not openly distribute the slide set under review, but I will share it with individual EC members upon request.

(3) This motion is considered urgent because we were informed at the July session that the IEEE-SA copyright procedures may be introduced imminently. Therefore, it is being conducted under the Early Close procedure ("For urgent matters once sufficient response is received to clearly decide a matter, the ballot may be closed early. This allows a decision to be reached in less than 10 days. Ballots where the possibility of an early close exists must be clearly marked accordingly.").

(4) It is my understanding that this motion falls within the category "Other motions brought to the floor by members (when deemed in order by the Sponsor Chair)" and therefore, per P&P 7.7.1, is subject to majority approval.

Cheers,

Roger

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1

Re: [802SEC] +++10 day ECM (Early Close)+++ Views on IEEE-SA Copyright Procedures