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)????
Roger-
At 02:29 PM 4/15/2003 -0600, Roger B. Marks wrote:
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;
That is not true, my only point was that you use the conversion to the
term draft as your gating function, 802.3 uses forwarding to WG Ballot.
To make availability swing on the term "draft" when the term
itself has variable meaning is not a good idea. I have no problem with
the variable meaning.
(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.
Well, no. We seem to agree that the level of maturity that coincides with
WG ballot in dot3 and dot16 seem about right to me. Other WGs (802.1 for
example) go to WG ballot earlier. That is an appropriate for them to
decide. It is also appropriate for each WG to decide the point in their
document progression to set public availability.
If I misunderstood, please let me know.
Thanks,
Roger
Cheers,
Geoff
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