It's completely appropriate. If these SIGs are for the purposes of
forming consensus then I fail
to see why anything they do needs secrecy. I'm asking for someone to
give me a good reason.
If there isn't one then it seems to me that SIGs that operate under
NDA are for something other
than consensus forming and their legitimacy in so far as they do work
to amend IEEE 802 standards
should then be under question.
I'll pass your suggestion to go on what would amount to a snipe hunt.
Dan.
On 4/18/17, 11:37 PM, "Benjamin Rolfe"
<outlook_2CB8745B51AA14EB@outlook.com<mailto:outlook_2CB8745B51AA14EB@outlook.com>
on behalf of ben@blindcreek.com<mailto:ben@blindcreek.com>> wrote:
This is not an appropriate question for this mailer. You should
inquire with the various industry alliances and SIGs to ask why they
keep parts of their internal processes confidential.
Ben
On 4/18/2017 11:11 PM, Harkins, Daniel wrote:
Howdy Andrew,
As an expert on SIGs, let me ask you then why would a SIG require
NDAs from its different
member companies?
regards,
Dan.
On 4/18/17, 11:03 PM, "***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
on behalf of Andrew Myles (amyles)"
<STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org> on behalf of
amyles@CISCO.COM<mailto:amyles@CISCO.COM>> wrote:
G’day all
I have been participating in various discussions related to SIGs in
multiple forums.
I have now come to the conclusions:
· It is very difficult to define a SIG and so requiring SIG
affiliations to be declared is probably impractical
o Note: I therefore withdraw my previous suggestion
· The vast majority of SIGs do not cause dominance issues,
indeed they mostly promote progress
o We should be reticent regulating something outside IEEE-SA’s
authority
o Aside: it might be interesting to explore why people prefer SIGs
to IEEE-SA at various stages
· The most important way for IEEE-SA to avoid dominance
issues is to ensure IEEE-SA activities provide all stakeholders a
real opportunity to contribute and to have their contributions
seriously considered
o Excellent Chairing is probably the best way to achieve this goal,
and it can be promoted with better Chair training
o An anti-dominance culture among the membership is also an
important contributor, and such culture can be promoted by training
too (including the slides recently written for this purpose)
Andrew
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Wednesday, 19 April 2017 4:58 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Possible Signs of Dominance action
IEEE SB-Bylaws 5.2.1.5 says "Failure to disclose every such
affiliation(s) may result in complete or partial loss of rights to
participate in IEEE-SA activities." and I expect that participation
includes participation in discussion.
However, I don't think we should start requiring people to disclose
SIG affiliations. It would be unwieldy significant extra housekeeping
to track. There are many SIGs (or similar things under other names
like MSAs) that have coexisted with our standards work without
creating dominance issues.
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Geoff Thompson
<thompson@ieee.org<mailto:thompson@ieee.org>> wrote:
Andrew-
I don't know of any action in the past which required any participant
to "withdraw from the discussion"
because of dominance issues.
(This is not to say one way or the other whether it is a good or bad
idea.)
Geoff
On Apr 17, 2017, at 10:20 PMPDT, Andrew Myles (amyles)
<amyles@cisco.com<mailto:amyles@cisco.com>> wrote:
G’day Dan
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.
Andrew
From: Harkins, Daniel [mailto:daniel.harkins@hpe.com]
Sent: Friday, 14 April 2017 1:50 AM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles);
STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Possible Signs of Dominance action
Howdy Andrew,
On 4/12/17, 6:41 PM, "Andrew Myles (amyles)"
<amyles@cisco.com<mailto:amyles@cisco.com>> wrote:
G’day Dan
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
germane to this.
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
most certainly do.
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?
Dan.
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Harkins, Daniel
Sent: Thursday, 13 April 2017 11:03 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Possible Signs of Dominance action
Hi Adrian,
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.
regards,
Dan.
On 4/11/17, 11:21 PM, "***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
on behalf of Adrian Stephens"
<STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org> on behalf of
adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org<mailto:adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org>> wrote:
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<mailto:adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org>
Phone: +1 (971) 203-2032<tel:%28971%29%20203-2032>
Mobile: +1 (210) 268-6451<tel:%28210%29%20268-6451> (when in USA)
Mobile: +44 7342178905<tel:+44%207342%20178905> (when in the UK)
Skype: adrian_stephens
On 2017-04-12 00:49, Andrew Myles (amyles) wrote:
G'day Adrian & Paul
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.
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
Sent: Wednesday, 12 April 2017 6:04 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Possible Signs of Dominance action
Adrian,
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'
document.
Regards,
--Paul
------ Original Message ------
From: "Adrian Stephens"
<adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org<mailto:adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org>>
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
Cc:
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.
---------- 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.
---------- 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.