| Roger:
I think the policy is embodied in IEEE-SA procedures. The -SASB Operations Manual has long included a requirement for a disclaimer philosophically consistent with the IEEE policy you detailed below. In In SASB Ops Man, 5.1.3, somewhat different text is detailed:
"this document solely represents the views of name of group and does not necessarily represent a position of either the IEEE or the IEEE
Standards Association.”
Obviously, the required text is not the same, but the disclaimer of clearly stating the statement does not represent the positions of superior organizations is the same. The biggest gap I see in the SA rule is it doesn’t point out something like the “other Organizational Units” in the disclaimer. The IEEE language is written for an IEEE Organizational Unit (e.g., inside IEEE, that would mean IEEE-SA, Computer Society, etc.), but the spirit certainly would apply to any recognized group within IEEE. The IEEE-SA rule extends things down to Sponsors and WGs. I guess it would be appropriate for ProCom to review the SASB Ops Man text and harmonize current IEEE policy if deemed necessary.
BTW, I agree with you about the statement of other groups disagreeing not being required by the policy, and would be impractical to verify that there is an opposing position.
—Bob
Paul,
What's new about that policy that conflicts with our existing procedures? How will policy changes be embodied in IEEE-SA and 802 procedures?
I did see this:
The name of the Organization Unit responsible for the Public Policy Position Statement shall be included in the Statement, along with the date of its approval by the governing body. Each organizational unit position statement shall also contain the following disclaimer at the close of the formal statement and before any background or attached materials: “This statement was developed by the [insert name of IEEE organizational unit] and represents the considered judgment of a group of IEEE members with expertise in the subject field. The positions taken by [insert name of IEEE organizational unit] do not necessarily reflect the views of IEEE or its other Organizational Units.”
I did not see anything about a need to "clearly acknowledge that other technologies have different and conflicting and/or competing interests."
RogerOn September 20, 2017 at 9:37:47 AM, paul.nikolich (paul.nikolich@att.net) wrote: Roger,
Yes, see IEEE policy, section 15.
Regards,
--Paul
-------- Original message -------- Date: 9/20/17 11:01 AM (GMT-05:00) Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++10 day ECM (early close)+++ FCC NOI Response
Paul,
Bob and I agreed on a revision of section VIII and turned our proposal over to Rich to decide how he wants to proceed. I'm not planning any further editing.
I do, however, question the detailed edit that you are proposing. The LMSC Policies and Procedures ("Accepted by SASB 12 June 2014") says:
Subgroup public statements shall be identified in the first paragraph of the public statement as being specifically the position of the subgroup. These statements shall be issued by the subgroup Chair and shall include the Sponsor Chair in the distribution. Such statements shall not bear the IEEE, the IEEE-SA, or the Sponsor logos.
Is a new IEEE-SA procedure in place?
Roger
On September 20, 2017 at 6:06:57 AM, Paul Nikolich (paul.nikolich@att.net) wrote: Rich, Bob, Roger and All,
The guidance I received from Gordon Day, the chair of the IEEE Global Public Policy Committee, yesterday is as follows: "If 802 or SA is to submit a response to the NOI, I think that, at a minimum, the document must prominently state that it is responding only from the perspective of 802's technical domain (appropriately described) and clearly acknowledge that other technologies have different and conflicting and/or competing interests. It can't be seen as a position representing all of IEEE."
I consider Gordon's recommendation an editorial change and recommend we include language to that effect in the opening Introduction section. Bob and Roger, since you'll be working on wording tweaks today, please add the language. Also, add a signature from me as the 802 LMSC Chairman. Thank you.
Regards,
--Paul
------ Original Message ------ Cc: Sent: 9/19/2017 12:47:59 AM Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++10 day ECM (early close)+++ FCC NOI Response
I would appreciate it. Paul wants unanimity. ---------- 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.
|