[802SEC] Re: issues regarding sale of 802 drafts
Happy New Year, Jerry!
I feel the need to once again return to the issue of draft sales. Let me first summarize (with detailed history below):
I was tasked to work with you on this issue, which has remained a problem for many years, at the November plenary. During that session, I sent the EC a note documenting our discussions. I followed up a week later with a list of some specific issues that we had noted in the catalog. One of these was, as I noted, quite serious; namely, a document number and document title referencing different documents, giving a customer about a 50% chance of not getting the document they thought they bought. You wrote (Nov 20) that you would try to get this addressed.
At this point, I have to say that I have seen so signs of progress. The faulty listings on the catalog site have not, to my knowledge, been corrected; this remains, in my view, a problem in need of urgent repair. Also, no new drafts seem to be offered for sale, even though I know that at least some (namely, those from 802.16) were made available.
I urge you to address the issues, giving precedence to the most critical points. I still believe that IEEE-SA _must_ have a workable system to distribute drafts. If there is no functional way to sell them, I see no alternative but to give them away.
At 17:48 -0500 03/11/20, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>I am having someone look into this and fix it. Thanks for the alert. We
>are also addressing the other issues identified by our Task Force. I will
>send the resolutions this week after I speak with the vendor and the Ballot
>I just want to remind you of a serious problem in:
>The listing is so bad that I can't tell what draft this is. Customers
>could end up buying something they do no want. It is labeled:
>"P802.16?, (D1) Draft Amendment to IEEE Recommended Practice for
>Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Coexistence of Fixed Broadband
>Wireless Access Systems"
>The title describes P802.16.2-REVa, not P802.16. But it is P802.16 that
>is at the D1 stage, whereas P802.16.2-REVa is at D8.
>The description and keywords are taken from P802.16.2-REVa but are garbled.
>I don't know which of these two drafts they are selling. They should
>be selling both.
>SEPARATELY, there are two other product pages
>offering earlier drafts of P802.16.2-REVa. However, there is no link
>to these product pages from the main listing:
>I don't know if you can still buy the old draft, provided you can
>find the links on your own.
>>Per Paul's request, I met with Jerry Walker today to review issues
> >regarding IEEE-SA sales of 802 drafts. Here is a summary of the
> >*Sale of drafts is of value to IEEE-SA. Also, it supports the
> >openness of the process by making this documentation available to
>>all interested parties.
>>*We observed a significant number of omissions and errors in the
>>listing of drafts for sale. We found problems in, and
>>inconsistencies between, the "IEEE 802 Unapproved Drafts" page:
>>and the Get IEEE 802 list of new standards and drafts:
>>On the "IEEE 802 Unapproved Drafts" page, document numbers,
>>versions, titles, abstracts, and keywords are incorrect and, in some
>>cases, garbled. At least one listing is of a draft whose PAR was
>>withdrawn in September. In at least one case, we can't tell which
>>draft is being sold because the document number and test
>>descriptions point to two different possible drafts. Other drafts
>>are out of date.
>>*We discussed suggestions for improving the "IEEE 802 Unapproved Drafts"
>>-Add page count; this is more meaningful than the included PDF file
>>size in making purchase decisions; it would also be consistent with
>>IEEE Store practice
>>-Remove the "IEEE 802 Standards Status Report" link, since this
>>points to the IEEE-SA project database, with information that is
>>confusing even for standards developers and includes many obsolete
>>-Since the purpose of the "Recent Downloads" button in unclear, its
>>prominence on the page is questionable.
>>*We discussed suggestions for improving the upload and posting of drafts
>>-Noting that even drafts that entered Sponsor Ballot weeks ago are
>>not for sale, we agreed with discussion at previous 802 EC meetings
>>that all drafts submitted for Sponsor Ballot ought to be immediately
>>submitted for sale without the involvement of the WG.
>>-An upload facility similar to the IEEE-SA Balloting Center Uploads
>>should be made available for a WG to easily upload WG drafts (prior
>>to Sponsor Ballot) in a consistent process. It seems as if the
>>Balloting Center Uploads page could be used as is, with the comment
>>field used to indicate that the draft is for sale, not for ballot.
>>-When new drafts enter the catalog, an acknowledgement of
>>availability should be posted to the WG contact, with a link to the
>>product listing for review and an email address to send any
>>-It's not clear how best to remind WGs to upload new drafts. Jerry
>>suggested monthly reminders. Roger was not enthusiastic. Roger
>>believes that, if the process is easy to use and fully acknowledged,
>>WGs will learn to use them regularly.
>>-Jerry wants to ensure that uploaded drafts are unsecured. IEEE
>>staff need to edit something in the PDF (presumably the description
>>fields and security options).
>>-Once a draft is approved by the SASB, it should quickly be
>>relabeled as an Approved Draft instead of an Unapproved Draft. This
>>should be handled entirely by staff. It's not clear to Roger why the
>>ILI catalog should be limited to Unapproved; this requires an extra
>>level of management to move drafts to IEEE Store once approved.
>>*Suggestions for improving the value of IEEE Standards Online subscriptiom
>>-Rather than remove obsolete drafts, it might be better to retain
>>them to maintain an archive; this might encourage some people to
>>>At 17:24 -0500 03/11/11, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>>> >You are not at the 802 task force meeting, but I have assigned you
>>> >an action item:
>>> >- please work with Jerry Walker to develop a process that ensures
>>>drafts are >made available for sale in a timely manner.
>>> >Please confirm you can implement this action item with Jerry and me.