Re: Invitation to Co-Sign Letter to IEEE Election Candidates regarding ISTO
Mark-
See below
At 09:08 AM 10/12/00 -0700, Prof. Mark P. Haselkorn wrote:
Geof,
My definition of "one end of the spectrum" was that all the
interested parties were at the table.
The following exchange with Roger may be helpful.
Hope this helps.
Mark
Roger,
(1) Only an entity with IEEE's interests and perspectives can decide if
an issue is appropriate for ISTO (i.e. no, it cannot be left to the
standards developers).
(2) They can't. The two need to be distinguished.
This is what ALL of the stink is about, the ISTO's use of the word
standard makes it such that the public has no hope of being able to
distinguish. I keep pushing for the term "Specification". If
the ISTO would agree to that we would all be done.
I don't have enough information to know how
best to implement these two items, but they need to be addressed.
Hope this helps. I suspect we're pretty much in agreement.
Mark
At 12:19 PM 10/11/00 -0600, you wrote:
Mark,
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate the seriousness with which you
have taken the issue, and I particularly appreciate the point you made in
your "pajama" example.
Since you asked "Am I making my position clear?", I'll mention
that I see a few problems. The main ones:
(1) Who decides which side of the spectrum the topic falls on? Can you
leave it to the standards developers? Pajama manufacturers might find
more convenient to declare an "IEEE" "standard"
through ISTO, even if you or I found this to be inappropriate.
I would also ask: if an IEEE Standards project already exists, would this
provide evidence that the project does not belong at the ISTO end of the
spectrum and that ISTO should be prohibited from developing a competitive
project?
(2) How is the average EE (let alone the average citizen) going to
distinguish a "standard" that has been through the IEEE
Standards consensus process from one that hasn't?
My own opinion is that ISTO should be prohibited from using the term
"standard" to describe their output; I think "industry
specification" would describe their outputs perfectly. And, unless
ISTO were appropriately accountable, I would go further and prohibit ISTO
from using the IEEE name and logo.
I'm not trying to get into a debate with you on this, but, since you
asked, I thought I owed you an answer.
Since I won't actually ask for your comments until October 15, you have
time to refine your position if you like.
Regards,
Roger
Mark
At 02:35 PM 10/11/00 -0700, Geoff Thompson wrote:
Mark:
I believe that your reply misses the point. What ISTO is doing (in your
terms) is:
"On one end of the spectrum would be a standard that was purely an
issue of achieving consensus as quickly as possible among a clearly
defined group of industrial partners with no issues of correctness or
impact outside the agreeing participants"
without consensus of "all interested parties". They limit the
parties and they don't achieve consensus. How to provide access to
"all interested parties" and the minimum requirements to
achieve "consensus" are rooted in the procedures of the IEEE-SA
and are derived from the accreditation requirements from ANSI.
Folks who wish to cut an agreement, any sort of an agreement can do so,
but that is not a standard in the sense above. It is a
"specification", more properly in standards terms it is a
"Publicly Available Specification" (PAS).
The issue here is IF an organization produces accredited standards
AND
If the same organization produces "Publicly Available
Specifications"
Under the same logo/banner/brand mark
AND
Does not sufficiently distinguish between the two
Then the result will be:
1) Loss of respect for
standards produced under the traditional method due to destruction of the
brand integrity.
2) The danger of loss of
accreditation to the formulating organization for failure to adequately
distinguish between the two.
There is a simple way out.
Don't call them "standards", call them
"specifications".
Some of the world's great standards started out as publicly available
specifications. Examples: HP-IB became IEEE-488 and (DEC-Intel-Xerox)
Ethernet became IEEE 802.3.
Geoff Thompson
At 10:48 AM 10/11/00 -0700, Prof. Mark P. Haselkorn wrote:
Roger,
I believe there are different types of standards that require different
types of handling. On one end of the spectrum would be a standard
that was purely an issue of achieving consensus as quickly as possible
among a clearly defined group of industrial partners with no issues of
correctness or impact outside the agreeing participants (I'm not sure
such a pure standard exists, but I'm laying out the extremes). On
the other end of the spectrum is a standard that has to conform with
reality and consider impacts beyond the participants. For example,
it would be very wrong for a group of pajama manufacturers to declare a
standard for "inflammable" that had nothing to do with whether
or not the garment could catch fire. The more a standard is on the
first side of the spectrum, the greater role I believe ISTO can
play. The more it is on the second side of the spectrum, the more
IEEE needs to guard that ISTO does not make standards for the convenience
and profit of industrial partners without regard to the greater realities
of the situation and the impact on non-participating parties. If
this were allowed to happen, IEEE would be failing in its central mission
of benefiting society.
Am I making my position clear?
Mark
*****************************************************************************
Mark P. Haselkorn
Professor and Founding Chair
Department of Technical Communication
Principle Investigator, National Research Council Project on
Lessons from Y2K for Strategic
Management of IT
IEEE Technical Activities Strategic Planning Committee
Box 352195
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
(206) 543-2577; (206) 543-8858 (fax)
*****************************************************************************
Mark P. Haselkorn
Professor and Founding Chair
Department of Technical Communication
Principle Investigator, National Research Council Project on
Lessons
from Y2K for Strategic Management of IT
IEEE Technical Activities Strategic Planning Committee
Box 352195
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
(206) 543-2577; (206) 543-8858 (fax)