Re: [802SEC] New Model for the Maintenance of IEEE Standards
Today is the deadline for the submission of comments to Dave Ringle
regarding the Staff/Governance proposal for the elimination of
Reaffirmation and related changes.
After careful consideration of the discussion that we had during our EC
teleconference and a review of the position being put forth by the
Computer Society Standards Activities Board (SAB), I have decided that
the items upon which we could achieve consensus did not actually overlap
the proposal being made. Therefore, I do not intend to submit comments
We agreed that the changes would mostly have an effect on standards that
are rather stable where it is generally the case in 802 that our
standards that have any significant market success undergo amendment
and/or revision on a regular basis.
As always, 802 has a number of ideas that would be appropriate to
improve the standards maintenance process. Bob Grow's editions based
voting is a strong candidate from my point of view. However, it is
orthogonal to the current proposal and we have a way to go before we
achieve internal consensus. I hope we will push forward on it.
My personal hope is that those on the SASB from 802 folks will strongly
support the position on the proposed changes that will be made by Jim
Moore for the SAB at the March meeting.
On 262//11 10:04 PM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
I agree there is little to be gained by an 802 submission to SASB at
this point. I do recommend you let the EC know your rationale but in
a highly summarized simplified form, e.g., you were unable to obtain
clear, meaningful EC consensus and think it is best to not submit any
comment at this time (or whatever you think accurately reflects the
I am comfortable with that being posted to the EC reflector.
I hope you're having a good Saturday night. I'm going to bed now.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoff Thompson" <email@example.com>
To: "Paul Nikolich" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Geoff Thompson" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: DRAFT feedback: New Model for the Maintenance of IEEE
I only got 2 inputs from members of the EC.
John Lemon gave me a couple of very minor typo editorial corrections.
Tony expressed the hope that edition balloting would allow relief
from the 3/5 rule for revisions in the new regime.
There is no provision for that in the current proposal.
Given the input to the SASB from Jim Moore and the SAB,
I am now of the opinion we should NOT submit our document.
Our document does not actually address the proposal in any way
It says, instead that:
- It mostly doesn't apply to us
- We would like something else entirely to deal with our problems
(i.e. edition balloting)
(and the truth is we haven't reached consensus on that)
My feeling is our document would just confuse the discussion and
detract from the focus of the points that Jim Moore is trying to make.
We both know that to get any position past the SASB it has to be kept
simple and on focus.
I would rather support the position of Jim and the SAB than try to
push a different agenda at this point.
(I do have some minor fussing about Jim's position but he was
unwilling to incorporate it in his material and I think it is a bad
idea to bring it up separately. It had to do with the theory that
the 10 year revisions could be limited to just changing the date (as
a "substitute" for reaffirmation. A revision is a revision and the
entire document is open for change.)
Let me know what you think I should say to the rest of the EC (and
whether it should go to the reflector or be private)
If "we" want to promote edition balloting andor
On 242//11 6:34 AM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
The 28FEB deadline is approaching--you didn't conduct a vote on a
response, which is OK I suppose as long as there aren't any
objections to your submission.
Please post your draft response to the EC reflector to let everyone
know what you plan to submit to Ringle.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoff Thompson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: <email@example.com>; <pthaler@BROADCOM.COM>;
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; <bob.grow@INTEL.COM>; <email@example.com>;
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
<email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <MJLynch@mjlallc.com>;
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 8:27 PM
Subject: DRAFT feedback: New Model for the Maintenance of IEEE
DRAFT RESPONSE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE EC
AS AN 802 REPLY TO THE ITEM DISTRIBUTED BY DAVE RINGLE (See below)
Please direct your comments on the draft as REPLY ALL to this
message rather than to the EC reflector.
I intend to put the finalized draft on the reflector for vote
The SASB proposal for a "New Model for the Maintenance of IEEE
Standards" was distributed to the 802 EC for consideration on Jan.
The proposal was a topic of discussion during a conference call
meeting of the 802 EC held on Feb 1. I was asked by Paul Nikolich
to draft consensus text from 802 to be submitted to you as our
response to your request for comments.
As discussed by Jim Moore in white paper that he drafted for
consideration by The Computer Society Standards Activity board
(SAB), we agree that the greater portion of the impact of the new
policy tend to fall upon standards centered around slowly evolving
technology or standards whose chief value is in their stability
(Nuclear Engineering comes to mind).
We believe that most 802 standards are either evolving at such a
rate or amended often enough that they will require revision well
before the 10 year mark with the most active standards (e.g. 802.1,
802.3, 802.11) requiring revision (by rule) every three years.
Therefore, we believe that the major thrust of the changes will
bypass the core work of 802.
What would improve our situation significantly is support from
staff (and the P&P if necessary) so that 802 could move the bulk of
our balloting to edition based. This would be in line with the
proposals previously made by Bob Grow and would align to the needs
and clarity of more rapidly evolving (and more frequently amended)
standards. There is currently no recognition of editions in the
P&P and the staff support for generating editions for projects
other than revisions is not systematic. If 802 (and other rapidly
evolving standards) were to move to edition based balloting
(supported by the P&P) then many of the issues driving the 3 year
revision cycle would be much less significant. That would perhaps
allow the 3 year requirement to be relaxed to perhaps 5 years.
Obviously additional details would have to be worked out for that
In addition, the current proposal by eliminating reaffirmation has
eliminated the immediate need for the "Approval Balloting" process
in which the actual vote is not cast until all comments are seen by
the balloting group. It is our opinion that such a process would
be a valuable tool for the IEEE-SA and work on it should continue.
Thompson DRAFT RESPONSE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE EC
On 3/1/11 2:34 PM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
Dear EC Members,
Last month I received the below request for comment by the SA on a
proposal for a "New Model for the Maintencance of IEEE Standards".
They are requesting feedback by 28FEB2011.
On the 16th of December Geoff requested I put this on the interim
EC meeting agenda (remember we have a telecon scheduled for
01FEB2011 from 1-3PM ET). I will do so, at the moment, it is the
only item on the agenda other than a status update from me
regarding the DEC SA BoG meeting If there are other items you
would like to put on the agenda, please do so immediately.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:50 PM
Subject: New Model for the Maintenance of IEEE Standards
To: IEEE-SA Standards Sponsors
RE: New Model for the Maintenance of IEEE Standards
For several years now, the IEEE Standards Association's Standards
Board (SASB) has dealt with a number of issues/concerns related to
maintenance activities, such as:
· Reaffirmation ballots, which are supposed to lead to yes/no
decisions, often have technical comments that cannot be resolved,
as no changes to documents are allowed; this is a continuing
concern in IEEE-SA Standards Board Standards Review Committee
(RevCom) reviews of Reaffirmation ballots.
· Revisions PARs are not always initiated to resolve issues
raised during Reaffirmation, and this increases risk/exposure to
IEEE when we do not adequately address concerns.
· Reaffirmation ballots (and heavy workloads) have led to
cursory voting as many voters cast default 'yes' votes without
really reviewing the standard(s); this has led to questions on
whether the approval percentage for a Reaffirmation should be
raised, which would make our procedures more complex.
· There are differing (and strongly held) views on what levels
of technical errors/inconsistencies might be allowed in approving
a Reaffirmation ballot.
· The desire to gain ballot group input on issues (and Sponsor
reaction) before a yes/no Reaffirmation vote has led to proposals
for two-stage voting procedures, which would introduce more
complexity into our procedures.
· Stabilization (see the definition in SASB OpMan 1.2) is not
allowed if: the standard is a 'health or safety standard'; if the
technology is 'immature'; if it contains 'significant erroneous
information'; etc. - items that require clear decisions from a
risk perspective and that have led to much discussion/concern.
In the past year, the Standards Board's Reaffirmation Ad Hoc has
considered these issues and is now proposing a resolution that is
described in the attached flowcharts and three Bylaws/OpMan
documents. We have discussed these revisions with ANSI, and
pending their formal review of our final procedural documents,
ANSI does not have concern with our path - and we will retain our
ANSI accreditation. In addition, the revisions proposed will
reduce Sponsor and staff effort, and put focus squarely on the
need to actually revise maintained standards.
The key points of this proposal are:
1. 'Reaffirmation' and 'Stabilization' processes are eliminated.
Standards are either 'Revised' or 'Withdrawn from active status'.
2. Sponsors have to complete a Revision on a maintained standard
every 10 years, as opposed to starting a Reaffirmation every 5
years; the Revision may be as simple as minor reference updates or
even just changing the ':yyyy' designation in the title to
indicate it has been examined.
3. If Sponsors cannot form ballot groups or otherwise complete
their work, staff can initiate an administrative action to make
the standard inactive at the 10-year mark.
4. Each year, Sponsors will receive a list of standards under
maintenance, with special highlighting of standards that are at or
past the 5-year mark to encourage them to start considering
Revision PARs. Staff will file the necessary notifications to ANSI
to insure that ANSI is aware that we are working to maintain the
5. Sponsors will decide (internally) how they process this list
each year and consider whether to either start a Revision PAR or
'do nothing'. If nothing is done (and the 10-year point has not
arrived), the standard will simply move forward for
reconsideration by the Sponsor in the following year.
6. Transition plans will be developed in early 2011, but it is
expected that standards currently under maintenance plans will
continue to follow those plans in 2011, and this new process would
start in 2012. We expect little to no changes to myBallot and
other systems, but education/training will be important. FAQs and
similar material will be prepared to support the program.
7. These changes are expected to reduce Sponsor formal workloads
through the elimination of Reaffirmation/Stabilization ballots,
and insure that when comments on technical flaws are raised it
will be simple to update the standard without having to initiate a
separate revision process.
Standards Sponsors are invited to review the attached documents.
Please note that proposed Policy and Procedure changes are
indicated in the Bylaws and OpMans in yellow highlight.
Please send any comments to me by 28 February 2011. Thanks.
David L. Ringle
Manager, IEEE-SA Governance
IEEE Standards Activities Department
445 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA
TEL: +1 732 562 3806
FAX: +1 732 875 0524
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.