|
|
|
|
IEEE-SA Standards Board Procedures
Committee (ProCom)
APPROVED Minutes
25 March 2008
9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
IEEE Operations Center, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA
MEMBERS PRESENT
Bill Goldbach
Jim Hughes
Rich Hulett, Chair
David Law
Glenn Parsons
Malcolm Thaden
MEMBERS ABSENT
Chuck Powers
GUESTS
Satish Aggarwal
Monica Barone
Clyde Camp
Clint Chaplin
Wael Diab
Harry Epstein
Chris Fitzgerald
Daniel Giusto
Bob Grow
Susan Hoyler
Mark Klerer
John Kulick
Hung Ling
Steve Mills
Paul Nikolich
Ted Olsen
Ron Petersen
Gary Robinson
Sam Sciacca
Mike Seavey
Geoff Thompson
Claire Topp, Legal counsel
John Walz
Howard Wolfman
Don Wright
STAFF
Bill Ash
Kim Breitfelder
Kathryn Cush
Rona Gertz
Judy Gorman
Mary Ellen Hanntz
Yvette HoSang
Karen Kenney
Soo Kim
Mike Kipness
Bob LaBelle
Juanita Lewis
Luigi Napoli
Moira Patterson
Dave Ringle, Administrator
Christina Sahr
Ana Sainvilus
Penny Stanton
Jennie Steinhagen
Susan Tatiner
Sue Vogel
Jerry Walker
Lisa Yacone
1 CALL TO ORDER
Chair Hulett called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There was a round of introductions by all present.
2 APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There was a motion to approve the agenda. The motion was unanimously approved.
3 APPROVAL OF THE 3 DECEMBER 2007 ProCom MINUTES
There was a motion to approve the previous meeting minutes. The motion was unanimously approved.
4 OLD/UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4.1 Status of ProCom Items Balloted by SASB and BOG - Ringle
Dave Ringle reported that, except for the P&P change to be discussed in agenda item 4.1.1, all P&P changes that originated in ProCom in 2007 were ultimately approved by the SASB and/or BOG and are included in the 2008 versions of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws and IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual.
4.1.1 Comment Resolution on Changes to the IEEE-SASB Bylaws RE: IEEE-SA Database as Source for User Data - Hulett
There was a motion to forward the wording changes [below in blue] to the Standards Board for an approval vote. The motion was unanimously approved.
"IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws
5.2 Standards-development process
5.2.1 Participation in IEEE standards development
Participants in IEEE standards development shall act based on
their qualifications, beliefs, and experience. All participants in IEEE standards
development are expected to be familiar with, and act in accordance with, the
IEEE Code of Ethics. IEEE Standards Sponsor chairs and Sponsor liaison representatives
shall be members of IEEE-SA and shall also be either IEEE members of any grade
or IEEE affiliates.
The A specified
IEEE-SA database shall be used as the single authoritative source/repository
for user data participant
information related to the development of standards.
Such database shall be maintained by the Secretary of the IEEE-SA Standards
Board.
RATIONALE:
The change defines the SA database as the official repository for participant
data."
AI - Glenn Parsons to work on a proposal for supporting text in the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual.
4.2 Copyright Ad Hoc Update - Law
David Law reported the progress made by the ad hoc group, which spent a considerable amount of time in teleconference discussions since the December ProCom meeting.
The ad hoc group had three consensus policy proposals:
1. Ensure IEEE has the rights to publish its standards, produce derivative
works, etc.
2. The copyright owner continues to own the rights; there is no assignment,
only a license as detailed in item 3.
3. The license grants to the IEEE the non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free,
worldwide rights to use the Contribution in any format or media, without restriction,
and with the right to modify in any way: (a) in connection with [the identified
PAR]; and [b] upon publication of [the identified PAR], for any use or purpose
and/or in connection with any product or service. Ownership of the copyright
in the Contribution remains with the Contributor and is not transferred or assigned
to the IEEE.
David discussed various implementation options that were considered by the ad hoc group.
ProCom discussion yielded concerns, including:
- Pre-PAR issues may need to be considered.
- An analysis of the costs versus the perceived risks would be beneficial to
understanding how to proceed. Any policy decisions should be based on data.
- Based on the IEEE-SA risk analysis, it would be useful to know the relative
importance of copyright versus other items.
- A fear that the more complex the process becomes, risk actually increases.
- The individual process and the entity process should match.
The ad hoc made five implementation recommendations to ProCom:
a) Copyright policy on IEEE-SA web site.
b) Copyright policy slides presented at meeting.
c) Tick box in myProject acknowledging policy read and understood.
d) Signed agreement from authorized signatory for anybody who is a project editor.
e) Mandatory entity agreement with entities that contribute copyrighted materials
to the IEEE-SA entity process.
ProCom discussion led to a sixth implementation consideration:
f) In principle, the individual and entity processes are to be consistent. If there are differences, they need to be justified.
ProCom agreed with recommendations a), b), c), and d); and with consideration f). It was felt that item e) required further discussion in the ad hoc group.
The ad hoc group was directed to do the following tasks, in regards to the five items [a), b), c), d), and f)] supported by ProCom:
- Propose SASB Bylaws text for the consensus policy proposals
- Propose SASB OpMan text for the consensus implementation items
- Propose text for use in myProject and in meetings
- Propose text to be used for educational materials (e.g., FAQs)
4.3 Ad Hoc Report RE: Fixing the Reaffirmation Process - Thompson/Ringle
Geoff Thompson and Dave Ringle reported that the proposed, new reaffirmation process was discussed by the ANSI Executive Standards Council [ExSC] at it 6 February 2008 meeting. Dave attended that meeting, via teleconference, for the discussion.
The ExSC raised no objections to the new process. Based upon comments received from the ExSC, Geoff, Dave, and Rich Hulett made some minor revisions to the proposed P&P text. This updated text was presented to ProCom for consideration (see agenda item 4.3.1).
4.3.1 Proposed Changes to the IEEE-SASB OpMan RE: Reaffirmations - Ringle
There was a motion to forward the wording changes [below] to the Standards Board for an approval vote. The motion was unanimously approved.
"IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual
9.1 Reaffirmation
Standards that contain no identified significant obsolete or
significant erroneous information may be submitted by the Sponsor for
reaffirmation when accompanied by a ballot indicating approval by at least 75%
of the interested and affected parties. When the Sponsor ballots a standard
for reaffirmation, the entire document, including amendments and corrigenda,
is open to review, comment, and subsequent vote by its balloters. Objections
Commentors may indicate submit specific comments related
to the need to revise the standard rather than to or reaffirm
it.
Sponsors shall not conduct a reaffirmation ballot for standards with three or more amendments. In such situations, the Sponsor shall revise the standard instead (see 8.1.2).
9.1.1 Reaffirmation ballot
The ballot shall take place in two phases:
I) Review and Comment Phase. The standard and any comments from any previous reaffirmations shall be presented to the balloting group. Comments
- Shall state whether or not the standard contains any significant
obsolete or significant erroneous information;
- Shall identify any specific content that is obsolete or erroneous, along with
reasons for the claim;
- Shall identify any specific topics to be added, along with rationale as to
why their omission is detrimental to the utility of the standard;
- May also state general reasons why the standard should be reaffirmed or may
address its utility.
II) Voting Phase. All comments gathered during the Review and Comment Phase will be presented verbatim to the entire balloting group, in conjunction with a Sponsor response to each comment, for consideration during the ballot vote. No additional comments by the members of the balloting group will be permitted during the Voting Phase.
The ballot vote shall provide three choices:
a) Approve to reaffirm as-is (Affirmative). This
means, in the opinion of the voter, that the standard contains no significant
obsolete or significant erroneous information and is useful in its current
form. This vote may be accompanied by comments suggesting corrections and
improvements. Action on such comments is left to the discretion of the Sponsor
in future revisions.
b) Do Not Approve to reaffirm as-is (Negative). This vote means
that, in the opinion of the voter, the information gathered during the Review
and Comment Phase indicates that the standard is not useful in its current form.
(See 9.1.2 and 9.4.) shall be accompanied by identification of either
1) The specific contents that are obsolete or erroneous, along with reasons
for the claim, or
2) Identification of the specific topics to be added, along with justification
why their omission is detrimental to the utility of the standard.
c) Abstain. This vote shall be treated in the same manner as a regular
ballot (see 5.4.3.1).
The Sponsor may add comments, responses, or rebuttals to any comment at any point in the project life cycle.
9.1.2 Resolution of reaffirmation comments, objections,
and negative votes Processing of ballot results
The results of the Voting Phase shall determine the outcome of the reaffirmation ballot. All comments gathered during the reaffirmation process shall be presented to the Sponsor for consideration as to whether or not a revision project or other subsequent action is appropriate. Such further action is a separate decision of the Sponsor and is not a part of the reaffirmation ballot process.
After clarifying the intent of a negative ballot, the Sponsor
shall respond to a negative ballot.
The Sponsor shall review all ballots received and shall respond
to the negative balloter stating either that the information in the document
is not obsolete and/or his or her comment may be included in the next revision.
All unresolved negative ballots, together with the reasons
of the negative voters and any rebuttal by the members conducting the resolution
of the ballot, shall be submitted to the members of the Sponsor balloting group,
providing each member an opportunity to change his or her ballot. Names of the
unresolved negative balloters are to be included with their negative comments
in the recirculation of negative comments.
Comments accompanying affirmative votes that advocate changes
in the technical meaning of the document may be considered for a future revision
of the standard."
ProCom discussed the implementation timeframe should the SASB approve the proposed P&P text. Christina Sahr stated that the myProject team was aware of this potential change and was prepared to have it programmed by the end of 2008, in time for rollout with the 2009 versions of our P&P documents.
AI - Christina Sahr to enable some ProCom members with access to the myProject test system, so that they can assist in testing the programming.
4.4 Entity Study Group Guidelines - Discussion - Powers
This item was not discussed at this meeting.
4.5 Proposed Changes to the IEEE-SA OpMan and the IEEE-SASB OpMan RE: External Representatives - Law
David Law reported the progress made by the ad hoc group, which spent a considerable amount of time in teleconference discussions since the December ProCom meeting.
The ad hoc group developed P&P text for the IEEE Standards Association Operations Manual, the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws, and the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual. David went through the proposed P&P changes with ProCom.
AI - The ad hoc group will need to re-examine where the Oversight Committee should reside [new BOG subcommittee vs. new SASB subcommittee vs. existing committee].
AI - Dave Ringle to request that an item be added to the next BOG meeting agenda to discuss how an Owning Board/Committee is determined.
4.6 Hierarchy of Documents Ad Hoc Update - Parsons
Glenn Parsons discussed an issue that was first uncovered in AudCom. In the baseline Operating Procedures for Sponsors, in the hierarchy of procedural documents, there are listings for IEEE-SA Board of Governors Resolutions and IEEE-SA Standards Board Resolutions. However, at present, access to such information is limited to those with access to BOG and SASB meeting minutes. Since gaining access to the BOG meeting minutes for non-BOG members is not likely to occur, Glenn proposed that a précis version of the minutes that only includes action/information items be created for both the BOG and SASB meeting minutes. ProCom agreed.
There was a motion to forward the wording changes [below] to the Standards Board for an approval vote. The motion was unanimously approved.
"IEEE Standards Association Operations Manual
4.3.2 Minutes
The minutes of each meeting of the IEEE-SA BOG shall be sent by the Secretary to IEEE-SA BOG members, those present at the meeting, and anyone involved in an action of the IEEE-SA BOG within four weeks following the meeting. In reporting an official action of the IEEE-SA BOG, the minutes shall, on request of dissenters, contain a record of the dissenting votes. In addition, a listing of resolutions of each meeting of the IEEE-SA BOG shall be publicly distributed by the Secretary within four weeks following the meeting.
IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual
4.1.1.2 Minutes
The minutes of each meeting of the IEEE-SA Standards Board shall be distributed by the Secretary to voting members, liaison representatives, the IEEE-SA BOG, those present at the meeting, and anyone involved in an action of the IEEE-SA Standards Board within four weeks following the meeting. In reporting an official action of the IEEE-SA Standards Board, the minutes shall, on request of dissenters, contain a record of the dissenting votes. In addition, a listing of resolutions of each meeting of the IEEE-SA Standards Board shall be publicly distributed by the Secretary within four weeks following the meeting."
5 NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Proposed Changes to the IEEE-SASB OpMan RE: Appeals Pool - Gertz/Ringle
This item was not discussed at this meeting.
5.2 Clarifications Sought by RevCom - Thaden
This item was not discussed at this meeting.
5.3 Obligations and IEEE Code of Ethics (myProject) - HoSang
This item was not discussed at this meeting.
5.4 Proposed Changes to the IEEE-SASB Bylaws RE: Entity Working Groups - Ringle
This item was not discussed at this meeting.
6 NEXT MEETING
The next ProCom meeting will be Tuesday, 10 June 2008, in Piscataway, New Jersey, USA
7 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m.
 |
|||
|
|||
