1 / 10

IEEE Interim Telecon

IEEE Interim Telecon. Feb 1, 2011 1-3pm ET Jon Rosdahl (CSR): jrosdahl@ieee.org. Tentative agenda.

jhart
Télécharger la présentation

IEEE Interim Telecon

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IEEE Interim Telecon Feb 1, 2011 1-3pm ET Jon Rosdahl (CSR): jrosdahl@ieee.org Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  2. Tentative agenda • 1) December BOG meeting update, Paul, 15 minutes2) New Model for Maintenance of IEEE Standards, Geoff, 30 minutes (see attached material)3) 802 Workshop Saturday afternoon before the March Plenary--finalize agenda and participants, Paul, 30 minutes4) Update on March 2012 venue options, Buzz, 15 minutes • 5) Any other business? 15 minutes • Update on Singapore meeting -- Buzz • JTC1 AdHoc Minutes -- David • SLA Agreement -- Bruce Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  3. Amended/Approved Agenda • 1) December BOG meeting update, Paul, 15 minutes2) New Model for Maintenance of IEEE Standards, Geoff, 30 minutes ( see sent material)3) 802 Workshop Saturday afternoon before the March Plenary--finalize agenda and participants, Paul, 30 minutes4) Update on March 2012 venue options, Buzz, 15 minutes • 5) Any other business? 15 minutes • Update on Singapore meeting -- Buzz • JTC1 AdHoc Minutes -- David • SLA Agreement – Bruce Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  4. Paul’s BOG Review Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  5. SA Rules Change • Folks-(The Stds Board was just going to vote this in at the December meeting without consultation with Sponsors. We got it put off til March with a Sponsor Comment period through February)IEEE Staff and the leader of an Ad Hoc (Jim Hughes of Microsoft) are recommending changes to the SA operating rules to:     - Eliminate the REAFFIRMATION process altogether     - Change the REVISION cycle from 3 or 5 years (with a possible 1 year extension)       to an ABSOLUTE 10 year renewal requirementIn addition, they propose to eliminate any categorization of older non-active standards     (e.g. Stabilized, Withdrawn, etc) or the recording of any rationale for its non-active status such as:         - Contains erroneous or obsolete information (i.e. reaffirmation failure)         - Legal reasons (withdrawn as the result of a lawsuit)         - Superseded (by a newer IEEE Standard or maybe by an ISO, IEC or JTC-1 standard)The only categories would be "Active" or "Inactive".Other changes/impacts:     - Sponsor Ballot Pool members could be "disqualified" from future ballots for lack of response (no criteria provided, Ref SASB OM 5.4.1)     - Trial Use standards which default to full standard status (2 yrs) would have full status for 10 years.     - Unlimited amendments for 3 years or 3 max for 3+ years (one 2 year extension possible)     - ANSI approved standards require revision on a 5 year cycle, not ten. Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  6. References • Attached SA OM, 6.3.1     Attached SA By Laws, 2.2, 4.2.3.1, 5.1, 5.2.5, 5.3 (the big One), 6.2 (patent policy change)     Attached SASB OM,  1.2,  4.1.2,  5.4.1,  5.7,  6.3.3, 9  Minor 5.6.2.1 Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  7. *GEOFF's OPINION ON THIS • *I think this is a bad idea.  While reducing the complexity of our maintenance overhead is attractive, 10 years is an eternity in our industry.  Further, the real reason the SA is proposing this seems to be because they couldn't cope with generating (and mechanizing) a reasonable mechanism for APPROVAL BALLOTING.There has been problems and confusion for years with the Reaffirmation process.  It only got worse when the SA tried to do Reaffirmation within the normal balloting process for the initial approval of standards (i.e. includes the ability to have comments that stand in the way of an approve ballot) within MyBallot.  There were several attempts to fix this (I came up with what I thought was a quite reasonable alternative) but none of these were adopted. Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  8. Opinion continued: • During the effort to design a voting process for Reaffirmation, it became obvious that such a process would be generally useful for APPROVAL BALLOTING (i.e. a document that must simply be voted up or down without change).  In particular, this is a useful process for standards from other SDOs that have to be adopted without change.The current proposal by the SA is (in my opinion) just an effort to avoid dealing with these issues.I truly look forward to discussing your views on this matter on the Tuesday call.Best regards,         Geoff Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  9. Flowcharts Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

  10. Workshop Agenda example from GlobCom. Jon Rosdahl (CSR)

More Related