RE: Redirection of IPF dollars
Roger -
At 22:19 21/10/99 -0600, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>
>I appreciate the worthwhile discussions and generally agree with the
comments. Here are my two cents:
>
>I understand that we are scheduled to deal with this motion in November:
>
>>In order to further the goal of making P802 standards free and
electronically
>> available to the public worldwide, IEEE P802 resolves that all P802
funds now used
>>to support ISO secretariats be diverted to supporting the IEEE-SA in
achieving the
>>above goal.
>
>I oppose this motion because it blends issues that need to be tackled
separately. I see three separate issues here:
>
>(1) IPF to support the "ISO/JTC1 Secretariat":
>I want to see a motion to end the IPF and will support such a motion.
>
That would be an excellent start.
>(2) Free distribution of 802 standards:
>The theory here is that the standards developers, rather than the users,
should fund
>the cost. Interesting theory. Obviously, standards developers want their
standards
>used and want to eliminate barriers to such use.
Do you mean users of the standards, or users of the products built to them?
The major users of the standards *are* the standards developers. The users
of the products do indeed end up paying for standards development through
the cost of the products based on them.
Seems to me that, as both the developers and the major users of our
standards, we should also have a major stake in determining how those
standards are made available. As you point out, the main motivation here
is to remove any barrier to their use that might be created by the price
tag attached to the books.
The real point here is that, if we are doing our jobs (as standards
developers) properly, then we are not creating standards, we are creating
an industry. (When that no longer holds true, its time to stop & do
something else.) Unrestricted access to the intellectual property that we
are creating is something that can greatly assist the growth of the
industry. Part of the phenomenal success of the standards developed
activities in the IETF is due to the fact that you don't have to fill out a
purchase order to get hold of a copy of the latest RFC or Internet Draft;
you just visit the website. In many organisations, the price is not the
barrier, it is the hassle involved in jumping bureaucratic barriers in
order to get the organisation to pay that price.
>But what we think about it doesn't matter; the rules don't permit it (it
does not
>fall under the "expedite the setting of LAN/MAN standards" clause). I
oppose any
>motion to use 802 income in this way until and unless such use has been
approved as a
>rules change. Once there is a rules change in place to allow such spending
in
>principal, then we need an SEC vote on to approve a specific agreement
with the IEEE-
>SA that details how much we will contribute and exactly what they will
provide in
>return. In fact, it may be difficult to get the rules change approved
until we have
>negotiated a tentative agreement with IEEE-SA. This whole process is going
to take
>awhile.
Perhaps it is time to change the rules then. A simple change to the
fragment you quote, to "...expedite the setting of LAN/MAN standards and
their widespread use in the industry..." or some similar wording would give
us the necessary freedom to work on this, without having to commit
ourselves now to some as yet un-negotiated agreement with the IEEE-SA.
Regards,
Tony