| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
FWIW - some side discussion with Clint really helped crystallize these thoughts, especially as they relate to cross-working group experience being different.
Thanks, Clint!
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> On Behalf Of George Zimmerman
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 12:04 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802 straw poll
James - I've been considering this from the multiple perspectives of having recently been an editor on multiple projects who purchased frame personally, from the treasurer, and from one interested in progressing high quality standards for 802 as a whole. As such, my answers are a bit confusing as a whole, and are relegated to absention and comments which read like a small essay.
1) Abstain
2) No answer
3) Comments:
Assuming 802 is paying for it, I am conflicted. From the standpoint of one interested, I support enabling our individuals; however, from the standpoint of the treasury, we began this process when we were in a different financial position. I would definitely oppose anything more than a clearly-stated TRIAL BASIS for 1 year at this time. The uncertainty of our view to the future is just too great at this time. This isn't a materially large expense, so treasury doesn't trump utility. Hence I abstain, rather than answer no.
However, I believe SA should pay for it, because they reap the primary benefit, which is that their editors will not have to convert from word, reducing their workload.
If the SA were paying for it, I would have answered Yes on 1, and 'at least 5' on 2. I believe that many of the answers on 2 are based on a single working group viewpoint. If single working groups are answering 3 to 5, the right answer is probably between 5 and 10. Given the number of editors we have across working groups (and the fact that teams fumble through older versions, and would go for an upgrade), I believe fewer than 5 would be a license-assignment burden. Reassignment will have to happen at least on a monthly basis, if not more frequent. 5 is a reasonable number for a trial, though. Having a flexible license would be useful. I suspect our usage will be uneven and peak around meeting cycles - when we get back to them.
I believe that experience and use will vary by working group. If licenses are provided, we should monitor demand, which working groups are using them, and should ask whether the editor is: a) a new editor, b) switching from word, c) an experienced user of frame upgrading their frame version, or d) just replacing a corporate license they have trouble renewing for the 802 license.
All of that said, gathering the data is a valuable purpose of the trial. it will tell us whether we should be paying for licenses out of working group treasury, whether we are generating new editors, getting more drafts done in frame, or just replacing what might have been a provided expense.
Opinions are rampant, and the data will help us answer these questions. Personally, I believe demand will go up, because many spend effort and even their own money today to get licenses (at least of the relevant version). I suspect (but am less sure) demand could mostly come from current users of frame not renewing or upgrading their licenses, and less from users of word, because the learning curve on frame (and the differences from word) are significant. In my experience, individuals who volunteer for editor jobs get some kind of support (time, at least) for their affiliations, and need approval. In managing standards teams, the cost of time is always the biggest component. For the new user of frame, or even just new to the IEEE 802 frame templates, which are NOT the usual modern frame practice, but something out of 15+ years ago, the cost of the time spent learning the tool is, in my experience, more than the cost of the license itself.
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 11:35 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802 straw poll
All
I guess I should reply to my own straw poll
1) Yes
2) 5
3) Seems like SA should pay for this, they will probably get a better rate.
James Gilb
On 8/7/20 2:55 PM, James P. K. Gilb wrote:
> All
>
> All voting members, please respond to this straw poll. Others are, of
> course, allowed to express their opinion as well. I will be bugging
> all the voting members to respond.
>
> Questions:
> 1) Do you support a 1 year trial of the IEEE 802 LMSC paying for
> Framemaker license rental for Technical Editors who would not
> otherwise receive funding from their employer or affiliation.
>
> Yes/No:
>
> 2) If the IEEE 802 LMSC decides to do this, how many licenses should
> be purchased?
>
> Enter an positive integer:
>
> 3) Please feel free to provide other comments:
>
> Free form text field here:
>
> Thanks
>
> James Gilb
>
> ----------
> 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.
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1