Re: [802SEC] Proposal for Editions
I should have added to this...in WGs where a number of amendments to a
single base standard are being processed simultaneously, as has been the
case in 802.1 for some while, the availability of an up-to-date
consolidation of all published material considerably aids the development of
further amendments. So for me, focusing the generation of consolidations
solely on the need for base text for a revision only deals with half (or
maybe much less) of the problem.
Regards,
Tony
On 5 October 2011 11:27, Tony Jeffree <tony@jeffree.co.uk> wrote:
> Bob -
>
> I agree with much of what you have said here. However, given feedback
> received from implementers in 802.1, I don't believe that *just* publishing
> amendments/corrigenda as consolidations serves our readership either. The
> complexity of our standards, and the sometimes intricate way that an
> amendment inserts itself into the base, means that for the implementer to
> have a clear picture of what an amendment does to the base document, he/she
> needs to see the deltas; in order to have a clear picture of what the final
> end result is, he/she needs to see the consolidation.
>
> So I believe that publishing amendments/corrigenda as deltas to the base
> standard is necessary IN ADDITION TO publishing the consolidation, and
> preferably publishing the consolidation at the same time or soon after. We
> are currently processing several amendments to Q that are following this
> model; I am hoping that we will be able to publish a consolidation very soon
> after we are done with the individual amendments. I know that this creates
> an additional load on the editing staff, but on the other hand, it actually
> delivers what the implementers need.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
>
> On 27 September 2011 16:28, Grow, Bob <bob.grow@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul:
>>
>> While a reasonable IEEE-SA wide policy, it does little to help the most
>> active 802 standards.
>>
>> 1. We have already learned that we have to create consolidations in some
>> WGs simply to manage the continuing amendment of the standard. (This policy
>> will not change that. If this were a rule rather than a pubs policy, then
>> we would be in violation of the statement that a consolidation shall only be
>> prepared for a revision. But if it is read only referring to pubs staff
>> then there isn't an issue, only no help to our needs.)
>>
>> 2. Four months is a significant problem. In my 802.3 experience it has
>> been difficult to find a period of 1 year in which to do a revision. The 3
>> year, 3 amendment rule has to be satisfied and some of our standards will
>> have a half dozen or more approved amendments/corrigenda and a few new
>> amendment projects in process when we try to slot a revision into the flow
>> of new projects. While we can typically give a 4 month heads-up for when we
>> plan a revision, it will typically be triggered when the last amendment to
>> be included in the revision is approved. (No new amendments are expected to
>> complete within a year or so.) At that point, the latest amendment needs to
>> be prepared for publication and then consolidated into the revision draft,
>> then maintenance changes need to be consolidated into the draft in
>> preparation to go to WG ballot. Either volunteers have to merge the
>> approved draft into the staff prepared revision draft (with publication
>> changes possibly being missed),!
>> or we have to find a longer gap into which the revision can be slotted,
>> or staff has to be willing to accelerate the consolidation of a virtually
>> complete amdnement/corrigenda.
>>
>> Fortunately, publication staff has been willing to work with us in
>> recognition of these needs, but the policy certainly doesn't specify what we
>> need.
>>
>> On the other hand, if all amendments and corrigenda were published as
>> consolidations (editions) pubs staff would not have to handle the
>> amendment/corrigenda twice (publish and then consolidate), our balloters and
>> users of the standard would not be faced with trying to make sense of a
>> standard composed of a big set of documents with stacked changes and order
>> specific changes, and we would be making fewer errors by consistently having
>> a solid single base standard (not a base standard with separately published
>> amendments and corrigenda that are part of the standard).
>>
>> --Bob
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:
>> STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:48 AM
>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: [802SEC] Proposal for Editions
>>
>> Dear EC members,
>>
>> Attached is a proposal from the SA regarding a guideline for
>> consolidations (also known as editions or roll-ups). I've reviewed it and
>> it looks like a reasonable process. The one gap I would like filled is the
>> time for the SA to respond to a WG Chair 'request for consolidation' be
>> defined (one week, perhaps).
>>
>> Please review the guideline and provide feedback to the EC reflector and
>> Karen McCabe. Thank you.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --Paul
>>
>> ----------
>> 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.