|
|
|
|
IEEE-SA Standards Board Procedures
Committee (ProCom)
APPROVED Minutes
17 March 2009
2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
IEEE Operations Center, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA
MEMBERS PRESENT
Karen Bartleson
Jim Hughes
Rich Hulett, Chair
Steve Mills
Ron Petersen
Chuck Powers
Tom Prevost
Jon Rosdahl
Howard Wolfman
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
GUESTS
John Barr
Victor Berman
Ted Burse
Joe Daniels
Bob Davis
Wael Diab
Mark Epstein
Chris Fitzgerald
Bob Grow
John Kulick
David Law
Hung Ling
Jim Moore
Ted Olsen
Glenn Parsons
Sam Sciacca
Mike Seavey
Claire Topp, Legal counsel
James Wendorf
STAFF
Bill Ash
Kim Breitfelder
Matt Ceglia
Kathryn Cush
Terry deCourcelle
Rona Gertz
Judy Gorman
Jodi Haasz
Mary Ellen Hanntz
Yvette HoSang
Noelle Humenick
Karen Kenney
Soo Kim
Mike Kipness
Bob LaBelle
Don Messina
Mary Lynne Nielsen
Moira Patterson
Dave Ringle, Administrator
Christina Sahr
Ana Sainvilus
Penny Stanton
Susan Tatiner
Michelle Turner
Sue Vogel
Jerry Walker
Lisa Yacone
Malia Zaman
1 CALL TO ORDER
Chair Hulett called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.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 8 DECEMBER 2008 ProCom MINUTES
There was a motion to approve the previous meeting minutes. The motion was unanimously approved.
4 OLD/UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4.1 Copyright Ad Hoc Update – Law
David Law reported that the Ad Hoc was chartered to ensure that the copyright policy web site is consistent with the P&P text. Also, that the FAQs are consistent with the P&P text and comprehensive. In December, the SASB set the implementation date for the Copyright Policy rollout as 31 March 2009 to allow time for the web site and the FAQs to be finalized, as well as to allow time for the BOG to approve the changes to the SASB Bylaws.
At the February 2009 BOG meeting, the BOG did not approve the SASB Bylaws changes. Some issues were brought forth and the BOG decided to send the issues to the ProCom Copyright Ad Hoc for consideration and response. The Ad Hoc considered the issues and developed responses. The P&P text (SASB Bylaws and SASB OpMan) includes proposed revisions for ProCom consideration; the web site and the FAQ were re-aligned to the revised P&P text.
The changes to the SASB Bylaws:
- Public Domain definition and exclusion of such material from license requirements
- Copyright Permission Form must be completed by a person with authority to grant a license
- License for contributions not previously Published is limited to content included in the standard
The changes to the SASB OpMan:
- Removal of requirement for Chairs to inform participants of the Copyright Policy
4.1.1 Status of BOG Ballot on P&P Changes – Ringle
Dave Ringle reiterated that the BOG did not approve the SASB Bylaws changes. Thus, it is not feasible to implement the Copyright Policy rollout by 31 March 2009. The proposed changes to the SASB Bylaws appear substantive and, thus, require a 30-day notification to the SASB prior to ballot or a 30-day ballot by the SASB; since the Copyright Ad Hoc was unable to provide the 30-day notice, a 30-day ballot of the SASB is needed. At minimum, this would conclude by mid-April 2009. Then, assuming approval by the SASB, the SASB Bylaws changes would still need to be approved by the BOG. This would then further push back the rollout date to some time in May or June 2009.
4.1.2 Policy Web Site – Law
4.1.3 FAQs – Law
Proposed new FAQ12 raised some issues:
- What does ‘very large’ mean?
- What is the source of the material – any source vs. third party vs. an IEEE standard?
- Need to reassess SASB Bylaws text [submission of contribution in multiple SDOs vs. timing of publishing; submission of contribution in multiple IEEE standards developing groups vs. timing of publishing]
FAQ14 issues:
- What is ‘significant’?
- Patent LoA issues related to copied text vs. general inclusion of the technology
FAQ15 issues:
- Re-examine vs. similar wording in FAQ14
- Need to consider all cases (references vs. incorporated text) vs. (unapproved draft vs. approved draft vs. standard)
The Copyright Ad Hoc was asked to consider the new issues and report back to ProCom at the June meeting.
4.2 Obligations of the Participant Ad Hoc Update – Law
David Law reported that the Ad Hoc was chartered to ensure that the myProject obligations web page is consistent with the P&P text. Also, to decide the method of implementation for the ‘call for copyright’. In December, the SASB set the implementation date for the Obligations Policy rollout as 31 March 2009 to allow time for the web page to be finalized, as well as to allow time for the BOG to approve the changes to the SASB Bylaws.
At the February 2009 BOG meeting, the BOG approved the SASB Bylaws changes.
4.2.1 Status of BOG Ballot on P&P Changes – Ringle
Dave Ringle reiterated that the BOG approved the SASB Bylaws changes (with some modifications). He stated that one of the main drivers for the myProject obligations signoffs is the Copyright Policy, which is not yet ready for rollout. Thus, it is not sensible to implement the Obligations Policy rollout by 31 March 2009.
4.2.2 myProject Web Page – Law
The text of the Ethics Agreement was modified, as follows:
“I have read the IEEE Code of Ethics <hot link> and attest that I will act in accordance with that Code, as may be amended from time to time, and that I will comply with all relevant laws and regulations, and pledge to uphold their respective provisions and the spirit of their intent throughout my participation in IEEE standards development and related affairs.
Notification of amendments to the IEEE Code of Ethics will be provided through this system.”
The Obligations Ad Hoc was asked to consider the following issues and report back to ProCom at the June meeting:
- A single checkbox vs. the multiple checkboxes
- Re-examine the ‘as amended’ text
- Simply stating in the SASB Bylaws that ‘we have rules and we’re going to follow them’
4.2.3 Implementation Plan for ‘Call for Copyright’ – Law
David Law stated that the plan was to request addition of the following to the last slide in the PatCom ‘call for patents’ slide set:
“Contributions made by participants in IEEE standards development are subject to the IEEE-SA Copyright Policy set forth in Clause 7 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws
<http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#7>”
4.3 Study Group Guidelines Ad Hoc Update – Powers
Chuck Powers stated that the Ad Hoc had made some progress and presented the current draft guidelines document to ProCom, knowing that some issues remain.
The Ad Hoc was asked to consider the remaining issues and report back to ProCom in June.
Bob Davis expressed interest in joining the Ad Hoc.
4.4 ‘Participant Database’ SASB OpMan Coverage Ad Hoc Update – Parsons
Glenn Parsons stated that he believed that this Ad Hoc had been overcome by events and that the staff/volunteer group exploring how to best implement the participant database would address pertinent issues.
This Ad Hoc has been disbanded.
4.5 Definition of ‘Standard’ Ad Hoc Update – Powers
Chuck Powers stated that the Ad Hoc had made some progress, but still had work to do.
The Ad Hoc was asked to report back to ProCom in June.
5 NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Proposed Changes to SASB OpMan RE: SCC10 – 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
5.4.4 Mandatory coordination
The Sponsor shall coordinate via circulation of drafts with the following entities:
— SCC10 (Standards Coordinating Committee on Terms and Definitions)
— SCC14 (Standards Coordinating Committee on Quantities, Units, and Letter Symbols)
— IEEE Standards editorial staff
The Sponsor shall indicate the IEEE Registration Authority Committee (RAC) as a mandatory coordination entity when the draft is submitted for Sponsor ballot if
— The PAR indicates the possible registration of objects or numbers to be included in or used by the project;
— It becomes apparent through development of the draft that registration of objects or numbers will be included in or is used by the project;
— Requested by the RAC.
Comments from these entities shall be given appropriate consideration and response. At the time of project submittal to the IEEE-SA Standards Board for consideration for approval, the Sponsor shall supply the most recent coordination comments and indicate either acceptance or a request for a waiver (see 4.2.3.2).
RATIONALE:
SCC10 was disbanded by the SASB in December 2008.”
5.2 Proposed Changes to SASB Bylaws RE: Sponsor Activity Reports – 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 Bylaws
4.2.4 Audit Committee (AudCom)
4.2.4.1 Scope
This committee shall provide oversight of the procedures used in the standards-development activities of IEEE Standards Sponsors as defined by 5.2.2 and review of the procedures used by the Accredited Standards Committees for whom the IEEE serves as (co-)secretariat. This committee shall also oversee the submission of Sponsor annual reports (See subclause 5.1.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual).
5.2.2.2 Sponsor responsibility/accountability
The Sponsor accepts responsibility for oversight of any of its assigned standards, including overseeing coordination, and balloting, and making annual activity reports to the IEEE-SA Standards Board.
When the breadth of interest in a standard is great enough so that more than one technical committee wishes to have a role in its sponsorship, a joint committee of the two or more interested committees may be formed to sponsor the standard jointly. That joint committee, whose membership shall be determined by mutual agreement, shall assume all of the duties of the Sponsor (see 5.1.2 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual).
Changes in sponsorship of projects shall be approved by the IEEE-SA Standards Board.
RATIONALE:
The contents of the referred to subclause were removed from the SASB OpMan in 2006.”
5.3 Proposed Changes to SASB OpMan RE: Copyright Permission – 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
6.1.1 Project Authorization Request (PAR)
As part of the initial PAR procedure, the committee or working group shall appoint a chair who shall sign a Copyright Agreement acknowledging that the proposed standard constitutes a "work made for hire" as defined by the Copyright Act, and that as to any work not so defined, any rights or interest in the copyright to the standards publication is transferred to the IEEE. Except as noted below, the IEEE is the sole copyright owner of all material included in the standard.
At the time of PAR completion, any previously copyrighted material intended for inclusion shall be identified. The working group is responsible for receiving written permission to use all copyrighted material prior to the start of the initial ballot invitation or prior to the next recirculation ballot if the excerpted material is inserted during comment resolution. Sample form letters are available in the IEEE Standards Style Manual.
RATIONALE:
Since, in most instances, it is the Mandatory Editorial Coordination (MEC) review which reveals the need for copyright permission releases not yet obtained by the working group, and the MEC usually occurs during ballot invitation, it is a more logical process flow to move the receipt period to prior to the initial ballot.”
5.4 Reaffirmation Process – HoSang/Topp
Yvette HoSang led discussion on concerns with the current reaffirmation process.
Yvette noted the following issues:
- The reaffirmation process needs to be more rigorous.
- Balloters may not understand the reaffirmation process with regard to the ability to make changes to the document and the consequences of their vote for approval or disapproval.
- Sponsor ballot resolution groups sometimes need guidance on the specifics with regard to reaffirmation comments.
- A tracking mechanism is needed for comments that would auto-embed the comments in subsequent ballots and issue a reminder to the Sponsor/working group when it begins an amendment, corrigendum, or revision.
- The current threshold for approval of a reaffirmation may not be stringent enough, especially given the consideration of this issue with regard to stabilization.
- Sponsors need to be aware of significant issues (especially issues related to health and safety), and there should be a mechanism to have the balloters resolve whether the issues are in fact significant.
- Any changes to the reaffirmation process need to be simple and hold within the current electronic system capabilities. There should not be a significant burden on volunteers or balloters.
An ad hoc group was created to:
a) Review the issues listed above; and
b) Re-review the proposed reaffirmation process [Review and Comment phase followed by Voting phase] that was discussed in 2008
The ad hoc members are:
Sam Sciacca (Chair), Ted Burse, Bob Davis, Wael Diab, Bob Grow, Rich Hulett, David Law, Ron Petersen, Tom Prevost, Howard Wolfman, Claire Topp, Matt Ceglia, Yvette HoSang, Mike Kipness, Moira Patterson, and Dave Ringle
5.5 Entity Working Group Participation Issues – Hughes/Mills
Steve Mills, CAG Chair, stated that the CAG had become aware of some entity working group P&Ps that included requirements for participation that were contingent upon a level of technical qualification.
Steve asked if anyone would be interested in joining the CAG group examining this topic. David Law and Tom Prevost agreed to join the CAG’s discussion.
6 NEXT MEETING
The next ProCom meeting will be Monday, 15 June 2009, in Tokyo, Japan.
7 ADJOURNMENT
Prior to adjournment, Chuck Powers indicated that due to work re-prioritizations by his employer and a dearth of time to allot to SASB activities, he needed to resign from ProCom at the conclusion of this meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
 |
|||
|
|||
