IEEE-SA Standards Board Procedures Committee (ProCom)
UNAPPROVED Minutes
9 September 2009
IEEE Operations Center, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA
8:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT
Jim Hughes
Rich Hulett, Chair
Steve Mills
Ron Petersen
Jon Rosdahl
Tom Prevost
Howard Wolfman

MEMBERS ABSENT
Karen Bartleson

GUESTS
Phillip Barber
Ted Burse
Clint Chaplin
Mark Epstein
Bernard Eydt
Bob Grow
Susan Hoyler
Bruce Kraemer
John Kulick
David Law
Hung Ling
Paul Nikolich
Sam Sciacca
Mike Seavey
Adrian Stephens
Claire Topp, Legal counsel

STAFF
Kim Breitfelder
Matt Ceglia
Kathryn Cush
Terry deCourcelle
Tricia Gerdon
Rona Gertz
Judy Gorman
Jodi Haasz
Mary Ellen Hanntz
Yvette HoSang
Karen Kenney
Soo Kim
Mike Kipness
Bob LaBelle
Don Messina
Mary Lynne Nielsen
Lorraine Patsco
Moira Patterson
Edward Rashba
Dave Ringle, Administrator
Ana Sainvilus
Jennie Steinhagen
Susan Tatiner
Cherry Tom
Sue Vogel
Lisa Yacone

1 CALL TO ORDER

Chair Hulett called the meeting to order at 8:04 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 15 JUNE 2009 ProCom MINUTES

There was a motion to approve the previous meeting minutes. The motion was unanimously approved.

4 OLD/UNFINISHED BUSINESS

4.1 Update on SASB Ballot of P&P Changes – Ringle

Dave Ringle noted the results of the recent email ballot of the SASB on the five changes listed below. The Changes that included SASB Bylaws text require approval from 2/3 of the SASB and the Changes to the SASB OpMan require approval from a majority of the SASB. Only 14 of 23 SASB members responded to the ballot. Changes A and D were not approved; Changes B, C, and E were approved.

4.1.1 Change A: Copyright [SASB Bylaws and SASB OpMan]

SASB ballot comments received were considered. There was a motion to delete ‘initial’ in the first sentence of the second paragraph of 6.1.1 in the SASB OpMan. The motion was unanimously approved.

The text noted in item 4.1 of the 15 June 2009 ProCom meeting minutes, as amended by deleting ‘initial’, will be brought to the 11 September 2009 SASB meeting for approval consideration.

4.1.2 Change B: Reaffirmation [SASB OpMan]

Chair Hulett will examine the comments received from the SASB ballot and report back at the December ProCom meeting.

4.1.3 Change C: Standards Documentation [SASB OpMan]

No further action is needed on this item.

4.1.4 Change D: Entity Participants [SASB Bylaws]

This proposed change failed the SASB email ballot due to an insufficient return rate; there were no Disapprove ballots. The text noted in item 5.5 of the 15 June 2009 ProCom meeting minutes, will be brought to the 11 September 2009 SASB meeting for approval consideration.

4.1.5 Change E: Standards Balloting Process [SASB OpMan]

It was noted that there was a fair amount of comments received on this proposed change. The RevCom 5.4.3.1 Ad Hoc group held a teleconference to review the comments received. While the ad hoc made progress, it did not have time to consider all of the comments received.

Clint Chaplin, Chair of the RevCom 5.4.3.1 Ad Hoc group, noted some items that were discussed by the ad hoc and that were deemed beyond its scope and for possible consideration by ProCom. These items were a) Handling of Disapprove without comment votes and b) myBallot status field issues [Out of Scope v Reject, etc.].

Chair Hulett asked that the 5.4.3.1 Ad Hoc now report directly to ProCom. It is chartered to examine the issues noted above and to also continue ballot resolution in the hope that any proposed changes within the scope of Change E can be brought to ProCom by the December meeting.

The following individuals are to be added to the ad hoc: Rich Hulett, David Law, Ron Petersen, and Howard Wolfman.

4.2 Copyright Ad Hoc Update – Law

David Law reported that the ad hoc had reviewed the FAQ and proposed some changes for ProCom review. After review and some changes (e.g., bullet format for FAQ2, deletion of ‘initial’ in FAQ12, etc.), there was a motion to approve the FAQ. The motion was unanimously approved.

Since the SASB Bylaws and SASB OpMan text still needs to be confirmed by the SASB and then forwarded to the BOG for approval consideration, the Copyright Ad Hoc will continue to exist in case it is needed for future comment resolution.

4.3 Obligations of the Participant Ad Hoc Update – Law

David Law reported that the ad hoc had proposed some text changes to Section 3. Conflict of Interest.

ProCom discussion yielded the following change:

“If you have IEEE-SA governance responsibility (i.e., member of the IEEE-SA BoG, its committees or the sub-committees of these committees), or the authority to approve an IEEE financial transaction with another party, or are an External Representative…”

It was noted that the current text in IEEE Policy 9.8 Conflict of Interest does not adequately address participants in IEEE-SA standards development activities. The ad hoc will be informed by staff (Judy Gorman, Yvette HoSang, and Dave Ringle) and Claire Topp on any proposed changes to IEEE Policy 9.8.

It was stated that it would be best to have proposed changes enacted to IEEE Policy 9.8 prior to implementing the SA myProject obligations page.

The ad hoc will report progress at the December ProCom meeting.

4.4 Definition of ‘Standard’ – Hulett

Chair Hulett stated that the definition of ‘standard’ that was previously supplied by the ad hoc group that had been chaired by Chuck Powers garnered quite a lot of feedback from SASB and committee members and staff.

A new ad hoc group was formed. Members are Howard Wolfman (Chair), David Law, Steve Mills, Ron Petersen, Mary Lynne Nielsen, and Dave Ringle.

The ad hoc will review the comments received and focus on creating a definition that could be used to explain ‘standard’ to a layman.

4.5 Reaffirmation Ad Hoc Update – Sciacca

Sam Sciacca reported that the ad hoc had met via teleconference and had reached consensus on a) that a Disapprove vote is a vote to discontinue the reaffirmation process, b) Sponsor agreement with a Disapprove vote is an agreement to discontinue the reaffirmation process, and c) that a Sponsor response of ‘Agree, but since this is a reaffirmation, no changes are allowed’ is an invalid response.

The ad hoc also discussed changing the labeling for administrative withdrawal to some other term, such as ‘historical’.

The ad hoc was asked to do the following and report back to ProCom in December:
- Update the reaffirmation process in the SASB OpMan
- Create a ‘historical’ category

AI – Jim Hughes to supply some relevant text from INCITS’ P&P.

4.6 ‘Informed’ Entity Representatives Ad Hoc Update – Wolfman

The ad hoc was asked to explore the development of text to ensure that entity representatives are properly informed (by their entity) on agenda issues for meetings that they will attend.

Howard Wolfman reported that the ad hoc had met via teleconference, where discussion focused on wording of possible additional text for the P&P and on the pros and cons of adding new text that included process steps or procedure definition.

After discussion, the ad hoc determined that it did not wish to modify the proposal from its original submission. The rationale was that each entity would have its own method for determining how its representative votes, and that trying to codify a method in the rules could lead to more challenging problems than it solves.

5 NEW BUSINESS

5.1 Issues from RevCom – Law

David Law reported on the issues (below) that were discussed in RevCom.

5.1.1 Addition of a ‘Definitions’ Section to the SASB OpMan

An ad hoc was formed to explore the addition of a Definitions section to the SASB OpMan. Members are Clint Chaplin (Chair), Phillip Barber, Jim Hughes, Jon Rosdahl, and Dave Ringle.

5.1.2 Status of IEEE-SA Standards Board Working Guide for Submittal of Proposed Standards

There were questions as to determining the current version and who has approval authority (RevCom v ProCom v SASB, etc). It was determined that the Working Guide was under the control of RevCom.

On a related note, it was pointed out that the IEEE Standards Style Manual may require approval by the SASB and/or the SASB OpMan could be modified. Chair Hulett, David Law, Claire Topp, and Dave Ringle will examine the issue and report back to ProCom in December.

5.1.3 Should Scope/Purpose in Draft ‘Match’ or ‘Be Identical’ to Scope/Purpose in PAR?

There was significant discussion on this topic. SASB Chair Grow reminded ProCom to be mindful of the interests of the Sponsors (standards developers), in light of upcoming ProCom agenda item 5.2.

There was a motion to change ‘match’ to ‘identical’ in the P&P. The motion failed (Vote: Yes=2, No=3, Abstain=1),

5.1.4 Potential Confusion about Ballot Group Size

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

5.4.1 Balloting group

The balloting group shall meet the criteria in subclause 5.2.2.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws. Balloting group members vote on the acceptability of a new, revised, or stabilized standard based on their interest in and commitment to reviewing and voting on a specific proposed standard. The balloting group shall provide for the development of consensus by all interests significantly affected by the scope of the standard. This is achieved through a balance of such interests in the balloting group membership. Balance is defined as the avoidance of dominance by any single interest category.

No balloter shall have more than one vote.

The IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws allow for the participation of invited individual experts in ballots of specific standards projects upon approval of the IEEE-SA Standards Board. An invited individual expert is a non-IEEE-SA member who has been invited by a Sponsor to ballot on a specific standards project for the purpose of providing his or her technical expertise to improve the quality of that document. The Sponsor shall provide the following information to the IEEE-SA Standards Board when requesting the participation of an invited individual expert in a particular balloting group:

a) A rationale as to why the invited individual expert is needed
b) Brief background information on each invited individual expert, including qualifications
c) A statement explaining the detrimental impact if the invited individual expert does not participate
d) The total number of individual experts invited to participate in this balloting group
e) The contact information for the individual

Balloters are required to classify their relationship to the balloting group relative to the scope of standards activity (for example, producer, user, and general interest). Where appropriate, additional classifications, such as "testing laboratory" or "academic," may be added by the Sponsor. This decision should be based on the effect the standard may have on participants not already recognized by the primary classifications. Individuals classify themselves based on their technical background, which may be related to their employment, job functions, or experience. IEEE-SA entity balloters are classified based on their entity interest as it relates to the scope of the standards project (for example, producer, consumer, general interest). No group (classification) is permitted to constitute 50% or more of the balloting group membership. Care shall be taken to ensure that all classes of interest are represented to the extent possible.

It is desirable to have representation of the materially interested and affected parties when reviewing the balance of the balloting group. Sponsors shall ensure balance prior to conducting a Sponsor ballot. Balloting groups of individuals should have at least 10 members to ensure adequate balance.

Interested or affected persons who pay the appropriate fees associated with voting privileges may join the balloting group for a specific standards project. Once the ballot has begun, the balloting group is closed to additional participants. Even if IEEE-SA membership status changes during the balloting period or recirculation period, there shall be no change to the voting status of the balloter with respect to that ballot.

Persons may also purchase the ballot draft for information only. Such persons may submit comments on the draft within the balloting period. However, they may not vote to approve, disapprove, or abstain on the proposed standard, nor are they entitled to receive any material other than the revised draft and responses to their comments.

Comments from persons who are not members of the balloting group shall be given due consideration and an appropriate response.

RATIONALE:
The change ties the ‘should have at least 10 members’ requirement to the individual process, and helps to remove any confusion with the different requirement for entity ballot groups noted in SASB OpMan 5.4.1.1.”

5.2 Stabilizing the Standards Development Process – Prevost

Tom Prevost initiated discussion on the topic of needing to determine impact analyses on changes brought to ProCom for approval consideration. A volunteer/staff team should be formed to develop an evaluation process (impact analysis, ROI, assessment against SA goals, etc.) for usage by ProCom. There was discussion on limiting the number of ad hocs formed. It was stated that some of the drivers of instability in our processes are entity influence in individual working groups, automation of processes, and risk mitigation strategies.

There was a motion to form an ad hoc to determine evaluation criteria for determining the need for future ad hocs.

There was an amendment (substitute) motion to form an ad hoc that is chartered to develop a business model for evaluating procedural changes. The amendment was approved. Then, this substitute motion text was approved as the main motion.

Ad hoc members are Tom Prevost (Chair), Jim Hughes, Rich Hulett, David Law, Howard Wolfman, Matt Ceglia, Yvette HoSang, Mike Kipness, Mary Lynne Nielsen, Lorraine Patsco, and Dave Ringle.

5.3 Proposed Changes to the IEEE-SASB Bylaws RE: Membership for the Entity Method – Nielsen

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

5.2.1.2 Membership requirements for standards developed under the entity method

Chairs of IEEE standards working groups developing standards under the entity method shall be representatives of entity IEEE-SA members. Designees (those designated to manage the Sponsor ballot) in the IEEE Standards Sponsor entity ballot process shall be representatives of entity IEEE-SA members.

Every entity observing a project within an IEEE-SA entity standards working group is required to be an Entity Member of the IEEE-SA, and only Advanced Entity Members can contribute and hold voting privileges. Entity nonmembers may observe at one IEEE-SA entity standards working group meeting per project.

Each entity participating in a project within an IEEE-SA entity standards working group is required to pay the IEEE-SA entity per-project participation fee established by the IEEE-SA BOG. Any entity that does not pay this fee shall not be entitled to voting rights in that project of the IEEE-SA entity standards working group, and each such Each entity project shall have at least three voting participants in good standing in order to maintain its validity.

RATIONALE:
The proposed change matches the principles approved by the IEEE-SA BOG when it approved the new corporate member model. This model creates a new category of membership, advanced membership, in addition to the current ‘basic’ corporate membership program that has existed since 1999. These changes will be effective on 1 January 2010, and the Bylaws need to match that model.”

6 NEXT MEETING

The next ProCom meeting will be Monday, 7 December 2009, in Piscataway, New Jersey, USA.

7 ADJOURNMENT

Copyright © 2009 IEEE (d.ringle@ieee.org) URL: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pro/909promin.html