During chang_3dj_01a_2311 Q&A, I pointed out that withholding inconvenient data goes against the very foundation of scientific inquiry. I was cut-off by the co-chair and warned that my comments were potentially in violation of 802.3 decorum.
Altering, selectively withholding or misrepresenting data goes against scientific inquiry for many reasons. One of them is that what may be considered a bad result can actually lead to new discoveries which by definition do not fit into current understanding.
While we are continuously reminded about patent and competition policy. However, we should also be reminded that we are governed by IEEE Rules of Conduct: For convenience here is one of the rules:
5. to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data, and to credit properly the contributions of others;
With respect to reporting optical link results, if they do not include properly annotated waterfall curves, no conclusions can be reached. That goes back to Shannon which underlies everything we do in communications. A presenter does not have to report waterfall curves, but can only claim encouraging results that justify moving forward with waterfall measurements. Specifically with respect to chang_3dj_01a_2311, no conclusions with respect to FECo and FECi can be reached.
Thank you
Chris
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1