Thanks for the reference to RFC 7282. It was an interesting read, as are most IETF documents of this type. My conclusion was it
said in more words what the ISO definition attempted to boil down to a single sentence. Both approaches are valuable.
The question of SIGs is a tough one. On one hand, I don’t believe IEEE 802 should attempt to restrict free association or private
discussions, either at the bar or in a more formal SIG setting. On the other hand, I would really like to know about the details of any discussions between other parties if they are going impact consensus building in IEEE 802.
So I looked for a pragmatic “happy medium” that allows free association, but requires the existence of the association to be known,
at least at a level consistent with current practice related to affiliations . The best I can come up with is that:
· (status
quo) IEEE 802 operates a consensus building process as described in RFC 7282, or as defined by ISO
o This
should mean anyone who has good technical arguments has any issues addressed by the group
· (status
quo) Participants are required to reveal affiliations as a mechanism to avoid the worst excesses of domination
o Those
participants who are unwilling to reveal affiliations are technically required to withdraw from the discussion; this is usually of most relevance to consultants who have signed an NDA
o Note:
we do not require participants to reveal the details of discussion with their affiliations
· (extension
to the status quo) Participants are required to reveal participation in formal SIGs to avoid the worst excesses of domination, similar to affiliations
o Those
participants who are unwilling to reveal affiliations should be required to withdraw from the discussion; this will be of most relevance to participants in SIGs where there are signed NDAs
o We
should not require participants to reveal the details of discussions within the SIGs, although in many cases they will want to do so to make a technical case as part of discussions towards consensus
o Note:
I would define a “formal SIG” as any organisation based on any “formal (written or verbal) agreement”
You noted a potential problem if participants do not reveal their participation in a SIG because they do not speak at the microphone.
I agree that this is a potential problem. However, as you also note, we have various mechanisms to deal with this if necessary in the context of affiliations, including recorded votes . I also note that in the 802.11 O&M (and probably others too) , a requirement
of attendance credit is that one records their affiliations. We could extend this requirement to include participation in SIGs.
I think we will agree that the goal of IEEE-SA is forming consensus. It is worthwhile at this point quoting the definition of consensus
(ISO defn)
General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important
part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments
My (our!) personal experience with ISO makes it somewhat less of an authority to appeal to. I'd
rather point to RFC 7282 which I invite you to read, but the actual definition of consensus is not
The nice thing about this definition is that it means the achievement of consensus by IEEE 802 is completely independent
of any discussions that occur outside IEEE 802. The key for consensus from IEEE 802’s perspective is that as long as individuals within the IEEE 802 have an opportunity to express sustained
opposition to substantial issues and there is a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties
concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments, there is no need to worry about any decision making processes outside the IEEE 802. The bottom line is that IEEE 802 doesn’t need to worry about agreements like NDAs between companies, it just needs
to make sure the processes within the IEEE 802 promote consensus as defined above.
The issue about NDAs is that there is something secretive going on there and there is no reason
consensus building needs secrecy. So the fact that there's an NDA means that something else
besides consensus building is going on and that is the problem. So I would emphatically disagree
with you that "IEEE 802 doesn't need to worry about agreements like NDAs." Yes they do. They
The fact that there's an NDA between companies in a formal SIG means that IEEE 802 cannot
ensure the process promotes consensus!
That said, I believe IEEE-SA has already established a precedent by requiring individual to declare affiliations,
presumably as a way of guarding against the risk of block voting. I note that IEEE 802 does not require individuals to reveal details of any discussions with their affiliations. Using this as an analogy, there might be a case to require individuals to declare
any association, either directly or through their affiliations, with organisations that have at least a partial purpose of discussing or influencing IEEE 802 standards developments. An organisation could be defined as any entity formed by formal agreement
of any sort.
Affiliation only needs to be declared when speaking at the mic or if there is a recorded vote.
Voting in IEEE 802.11 (other TGs mileage may vary) is generally, "those in favor raise your voting
tokens…those opposed raise your voting tokens…those abstaining raise your voting tokens" with
no affiliation mentioned.
Interestingly, this would probably include the Wi-Fi Alliance, and many other similar ITAs, which just makes the
whole idea of declarations incredibly complex and unwieldy. Maybe we shouldn’t bother and just focus on making sure IEEE 802 (or IEEE-SA) provides an environment that encourages true consensus. Hmmmm!
Actually, no, it would not include Wi-Fi Alliance because Wi-Fi Alliance is not in the business of
amending IEEE 802 standards. It takes the IEEE 802.11 standard and certifies implementations,
and sometimes it develops its own protocols which use IEEE 802.11 in the manner defined in
the standard. Completely different.
Since you are defending the use of NDAs in order to achieve consensus maybe you could explain
why this process needs to be done in secret, hmmmmm?
I think the key is NDAs. Two guys meeting in the bar to solve a problem is not the issue. An ad
hoc meeting of members outside of an 802 meeting to discuss how to reach consensus should
not be a problem. Neither of these would really involve NDAs. Problems arise when the activities
of the members of this group are secret.
We want to encourage consensus forming but If the goal of a group is consensus forming then
NDAs and secrecy have no place. Bad things happen in secret.
Regarding a need to declare if you are participating in a SIG, if we were to make that requirement, we would also need a definition of a SIG. Does anybody want to propose one?
IMHO this is not trivial, as there is a continuum of formality and inter-dependency, that goes from one extreme of two people meeting in a bar to solve a problem raised in a task group earlier that day to the
other extreme of an incorporated legal entity with NDAs and member agreements.
And, please remember, what we care about is (potential) dominance. Two people meeting in a bar are unlikely to dominate unless there are three in their task group. Two people meeting secretly under NDA likewise.
So perhaps any definition should not relate to the character of the SIG, but its potential impact on a task group, which can be measured in size of membership relative to the activity they are contributing to.
Sincerely,
Adrian Stephens
IEEE 802.11 Working Group Chair
mailto: adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org
Phone: +1 (971) 203-2032
Mobile: +1 (210) 268-6451 (when in USA)
Mobile: +44 7342178905 (when in the UK)
Skype: adrian_stephens
On 2017-04-12 00:49, Andrew Myles (amyles) wrote:
Adrian, thanks for drafting this document. They highlight how difficult it is to recognise dominance and differentiate it from reasonable behaviour
Paul, you commented, "In my opinion, as long as the group of individuals working on building consensus are open and transparent in their activities,
it probably is OK".
· Are
you proposing that anyone participating in a formal (or informal) SIG be required to declare that in the same way we require company affiliations to be declared? If so then I agree because it is just as important to know SIG affiliations as company affiliations.
Indeed, possibly more so because SIGs have the potential of being much bigger than companies in terms of voting members.
· Are
you proposing that the activities of the SIG be open and transparent? If so then I disagree because this would deny free association. If you went down this path then you would also need to require intra company discussions be made open and transparent. I think
you will agree that is impractical, as well as unacceptable.
Thank you for drafting this document, it is a good mechanism to stimulate discussion on an extremely (impossibly?) difficult to measure, highly
subjective topic.
I haven't seen any of our EC colleagues way in yet -- perhaps my comments will help get the comments flowing.
My high level comments are as follows:
1) We should try to define and separate "signs" from "evidence". In my mind, "evidence" is something that has documented proof of occurrence
(e.g., motion vote tallies). A "sign" is behavior a group chair (or
participant) observes (it may be documented by the observer).
2) In your Notes column, the potential explanations for the observed behavior have negative connotations. In some (many?) cases there is a perfectly
acceptable explanation for the observed behavior. For example, in the first row, the explanation for non-existent technical debate is that everyone simply agrees with the proposal on the floor.
Perhaps there should be two explanation columns; one for 'negative' and one for 'normal' or 'positive'.
3) We need to be very careful not to hinder positive consensus building behaviors that naturally occur outside formal meeting time. In my opinion,
as long as the group of individuals working on building consensus are open and transparent in their activities, it probably is OK. If we produce a 'signs/evidence of dominance' document, we should also produce a 'mechanisms for constructive consensus building'
------ Original Message ------
Sent: 4/7/2017 5:35:53 AM
Subject: [802SEC] Possible Signs of Dominance action
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.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.