| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
G'day Adrian I absolutely agree with your items 2-5. I also agree with item 1, in principle, as a mechanism to assist IEEE 802 members to better understand the risk of dominance from a particular SIG. However, after discussions in various forums, I have concerns about the practicality
and usefulness of the suggestion in item 1. So I have some questions:
·
One problem is that “SIG” is not well defined and could include a broad spectrum of relationships between companies and individuals. How would you define a SIG?
·
You suggested dominance could occur (and would need to be declared) if there is a potential of more than 25% participation in any meeting
o
How would you deal with the problem that this threshold is dynamic, depending on who is in a particular meeting?
o
I assume that the 25% threshold was based on the potential to block when voting. Couldn’t dominance effectively occur at lower levels too?
·
If we did have this rule, how would it change behaviour in the TG/WG meeting? One answer is that we would look out for dominance more carefully. However, it is not clear what we would do differently in practice. Wouldn’t it be
better to avoid dominance at all times, not just when there was a SIG? One mechanism to do this is for the Chair to ensure that all stakeholders have the opportunity to be heard, and that a full and balanced discussion is held on all topics of contention.
In addition, maybe we should avoid voting as much, instead going back to attempting to achieve “consensus” as defined by ISO? Andrew -----Original Message----- Hello all, In my personal opinion (insert usual disclaimer here), we should treat SIGs exactly like employers. What really matters (i.e., what we are trying to avoid) is dominance, which relates to openness and fairness. Thus: 1. IEEE 802 has a right to know whether an individual is participating in a SIG that has the potential to influence their decision making on IEEE 802 projects, and also has the potential to display dominant behavior (which would be defined
as 25% participation in any meeting). 2. IEEE 802 has no right to see the internal workings of a SIG. 3. IEEE 802 has no right to demand that a SIG be open to new members. 4. IEEE 802 has no right to declare a SIG to be good or bad. 5. IEEE 802 has no interest in the existence of SIGs that have no potential to display dominant behavior. Best Regards, Adrian Stephens IEEE 802.11 Working Group Chair mailto: adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org Phone: +1 (971) 203-2032 Phone: +447342178905 Skype: adrian_stephens On 25/04/2017 05:46, James Gilb wrote: > All > > I happen to agree with Dan that when a SIG is a: > - forming consensus for content in an IEEE 802 standard > - requires an NDA (and hence has formal legal structure) then, that
> is a point of concern. > > It is not prima facie evidence of dominance. > > I think it is an important characteristic of IEEE 802 that our formal
> work is done in the open. > > I am also very happy that our informal work is often not done in the
> open. > > James Gilb > > On 04/18/2017 11:48 PM, Harkins, Daniel wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > ---------- > 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. |