| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Ben-
I think I agree with you about the vetting. I can see a creeping requirement on what it takes to qualify a not-presented document for posting. It could easily evolve in that environment into yet another WG balloting process. This would be a bad idea. We participate in 802 to develop standards, not to peer review papers from (presumably) non-participants. The folks who do that are a different part of the IEEE which has a whole host of ways to deal with that situation.
My proposal would be to limit the 802 Contributors Collection to previously presented material with entries of the following 3 item set:1) Title: To be chosen by the author. Not required to match the title used on the original presentation but obviously should be similar.
2) Abstract: To be written by the author. Here the author gets to try to make the pitch as to why the work shows up in the collection instead of only being of interest to the particular TF/TG at the time and context of when it was presented.
3) URL: Permanent link to the actual work where it is archived in the records of the standards development group.
Sets of the above entries can be arranged and indexed in a way that the SA thinks is maximally friendly to the intended outsider audience. That would be in contrast to the way presentation material is arranged in our rigidly project/meeting oriented archives.
Regards,
Geoff
On Tuesday, February 1, 2022, 05:55:24 PM PST, Benjamin Rolfe <ben@blindcreek.com> wrote:
Hi Jodi and all,
I may have a slightly different understanding of what you said than Roger states regarding (1). I heard you say that contributions not previously submitted to the WG would be sent to the WG chair for validation. That does not define a process for validating the material. We would need new rules or other documented guidance defining what the WG chair does with such submissions. I am not sure submitting to "leadership" is sufficient to determine what material is appropriate. It seems like something we need to think about before we implement.
I have additional concerns about the vetting process. I heard an implicit assumption that material previously submitted to an 802 WG is already vetted. Which further causes me to wonder what "vetted" means in this situation. Anyone can show up at a meeting (assuming they've paid the meeting fees as appropriate) and ask to present a document. Our rules require anything presented is made openly available. In 802.11, 15, 18, 19 and 24 this means posted on Mentor. I believe the other WGs have a similar way of meeting the "openly available" requirement. We have very low qualification for who may post or present, as is appropriate to an open standards process. The fact that material has been posted and/or presented does not mean the group found it relevant, nor that it was accepted by the group for inclusion in the standard, or even that anyone else agreed with the presenter on any point. If IEEE gives the impression that material available through the collection has been vetted, I see how this can go badly wrong. I think it is critically important that it is made clear any document available via this collection is the opinion of the contributor and nothing more. Any pretense suggesting validation or vetting seems dangerous. But that is just my opinion, and I can be wrong (I practice all the time). 😉.
Thanks very much for your efforts. I do think this could be a valuable tool and appreciate the effort of yourself and IEEE staff in taking up the challenge. It is very often (almost always) that there is a lot of valuable material contributed during the development of the standard which is not included in the standard, e.g. detailed analysis, simulations, etc, that can greatly enhance understanding of the standard. It would be great to have such valuable information more easily usable. I frequently refer people to submissions on Mentor for background information.
Cheers! Ben
Hi, Jodi. Thanks for the update on this topic.
I want to call out two things I noticed by following the links in the PDF:
(1) In the FAQ,
What happens after I submit my contribution to IEEE SA Contributors Collection? Submitted documents are vetted for appropriateness and then their submission status is confirmed by WG volunteer leadership for acceptance on the platform.
(2) At the upload page,
By submitting the Contribution, you are providing the Contribution to the Working Group for the project/standard you identify, in accordance with the IEEE SA Copyright Policy and attest that you understand these terms.
As I understand, this promises authors that an upload directed to a WG will be pre-reviewed by volunteers in that WG and then will be treated as a contribution to that WG . I think that this could be a burden on the WG volunteers and will disrupt the current process in the WG. For example, many 802 WGs specify the format and cover sheet of contributions as well as the depository and file naming conventions, which may include, for example, coding indicative of a subgroup or topic.
How would an 802 WG opt out of being listed as a possible WG in the Contributors Collection?
Cheers,
Roger
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