Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Interim EC Teleconference meeting 1FEB2011 tentative agenda and Request for feedback: New Model for the Maintenance of IEEE Standards



Pat,

The flowchart is an 'educational' document; it may need some refinement.

The intent was to show that there are a couple of paths that lead into 
Inactive [Sponsor balloted early withdrawal; administrative 'withdrawal' 
{Reserve}].

Regards,
****************************************************************
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 
d.ringle@ieee.org
****************************************************************



From:
Pat Thaler <pthaler@BROADCOM.COM>
To:
STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Date:
01/04/2011 05:52 PM
Subject:
Re: [802SEC] Interim EC Teleconference meeting 1FEB2011 tentative agenda 
and Request for feedback: New Model for the Maintenance of IEEE Standards
Sent by:
***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>



The flow chart shows two types of Inactive Standards - Withdrawn and 
Reserved. I don't understand what difference there is between the two and 
the rules documents don't mention "Reserved". Is that an error in the flow 
chart?

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [
mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 2:35 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] Interim EC Teleconference meeting 1FEB2011 tentative 
agenda and Request for feedback: New Model for the Maintenance of IEEE 
Standards

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.

Regards,

--Paul


----- Original Message ----- 
From: d.ringle@ieee.org 
To: std-liaison-reps@IEEE.ORG 
Cc: stds-board-comm@IEEE.ORG ; y.hoSang@IEEE.ORG ; topp.claire@dorsey.com 
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 standard. 
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. 

Regards, 
****************************************************************
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 
d.ringle@ieee.org
**************************************************************** 

----------
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.



----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.