Standards
are living documents: dynamic and ever-changing. The rules that
govern them vary from organization to organization, those rules
evolve, and the personnel that develop these documents change as
well. As such, comprehension of this process can be
challenging.
That's where this document comes in. It's
meant to be a companion to the official
rules and policies of IEEE Standards.
It is not a rule book in and of itself,
but something a bit more expressive,
that may be able to offer some background
and detail that a series of rules
can't. If there's any discrepancy
between this and the official rules,
those rules are correct and this companion
is in error.
So what is
this companion all about? It's about the standards
process—the method by which we move from an idea to a fully
developed, officially approved standard. This companion also
helps to connect the many separate documents that exist and that
deal with the standards process.
The standards process, however, can be complicated. While this
companion will go over the straightforward steps in standards
development, you should always be aware that there can be
pitfalls that will delay or hinder the development of your
standard. This companion will deal both with an ideal process
flow and with some of the pitfalls. This document will also
discuss some of the new alternatives to traditional standards
development that are available through the IEEE Standards
Association.
Like any overview, it can't possibly present all of the
problems standards developers may encounter. However, a strong
knowledge of the process and practical implementation of the
rules will help prevent many problems.
IEEE Standards Department
445 Hoes Lane
P.O. Box 1331
Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331
USA
+1-732-562-3800
+1-732-562-1571 (fax) stdsinfo@ieee.org
IEEE
Standards Development Online is
a consolidated web area that walks
you through all the details of the
standards process through one place.
A
FAQ on Training for IEEE Standards
Volunteers is available.
A
training presentation that gives an
overview of the standards process
can be found here.
The IEEE offers a number of training presentations that
working groups developing standards can use. Check here for a full
listing.
The IEEE Standards website has a series of informative
frequently
asked questions about all aspects of IEEE
Standards.
The
official structure of the IEEE-SA and its governance is contained
in the
IEEE Bylaws, which contain rules for other major
organizational units of the IEEE as well. The rules for standards
can primarily be found in Bylaw
I-304.6.
These
documents are produced by two groups: the IEEE Standards
Association Board of Governors (BOG) and the IEEE-SA Standards
Board. The IEEE-SA BOG is the governing body for IEEE
Standards Association activities. The IEEE-SA Standards Board
governs the IEEE Standards development process. Both groups are
made up of individual members of the IEEE and the IEEE Standards
Association who are active in standards and reflect the different
technical interests of IEEE Standards. These groups apply the
rules and update them when needed.>
The Bylaws
also mention a hierarchy of documents that take precedence over
the IEEE rules, such as New York State not-for-profit law (the
IEEE is incorporated in New York). You don’t really need to
examine those as long as you’re aware that part of the
reason why the rules are prepared in a certain way is to suit
those overriding documents.
Finally,
while this document uses one term, “standard,” the
IEEE produces standards, recommended practices, and guides. The
term “standard” as used in this document refers to
the generic concept of standardization rather than an explicit
reference to standards only.
Standards exist because they help to build a basis in industry
for development, commerce, and continuity of products. Having
standards helps to create a universal market, a major concern in
today's global economy. Standards offer a means of narrowing the
variety of ways information is exchanged among different groups,
allowing synergy between multicompany development efforts.
Standards are also used for safety and to protect users and the
environment.
The IEEE offers a unique venue for standards development
because of its membership policies, its rigorous adherence to the
basic principles that govern standards, and its broad-based areas
of standards interest. These strengths combined with the inherent
values of standards themselves make the IEEE an excellent forum
for standards development.
The IEEE Standards Department publishes an informative, free
electronic newsletter on IEEE standards and standards
development. It's called the IEEE StandardsWire™.
You can find it here, and you'll also be able to sign up for
email notifications of updates as well.
Created in
1998 by the IEEE Board of Directors, this new organization allows
the IEEE to offer the broadest possible range of standards
services and programs, gives standards participants a role in
determining standards governance, and builds a more flexible
standards program. Basically, IEEE Standards sought to make its
program meet the needs of today's standards
environment.
In the
1990s, a number of alternatives to traditional standards
development flourished. The IEEE wanted to create a venue that
could address industry concerns and develop related standards
programs. The IEEE Standards Association allows this to
happen.
One of the
exciting aspects of the creation of the IEEE Standards
Association is membership. Individuals and companies can declare
their interest in the IEEE Standards program by becoming members
of the IEEE Standards Association. Membership includes a variety
of privileges, including the ability to elect the volunteer
leadership for the IEEE Standards program, and special services,
such as targeted newsletters and promotions.
Although
it's still a very young organization, the IEEE Standards
Association offers great potential for the future of the IEEE
Standards program.
For further information on the IEEE Standards Association,
check here.
For an overview of the IEEE Standards Association, look
here.
For further information
on membership, check here.
A
FAQ on the IEEE Standards Association can be found here.
The IEEE
Standards Association is directed by a Board of Governors (BOG).
The IEEE-SA
BOG establishes policy and guidelines for the direction and
development of the IEEE Standards program. They also have
financial oversight for the IEEE Standards Association. They
don't oversee the details of standards development; that is the
province of the IEEE-SA Standards Board. But they do govern rules
of membership and possible related standards activities for the
IEEE Standards Association.
The
IEEE-SA BOG is chaired by the IEEE-SA President, a member-elected
position that also serves as the standards representative to the
IEEE Board of Directors.
The
IEEE-SA
Standards Board is a committee of the IEEE-SA BOG. Its
responsibility is oversight of the IEEE standards development
process. The Standards Board uses a number of committees to
facilitate its work. Two of them, NesCom and RevCom, are
frequently mentioned in this document. NesCom, or
the New Standards Committee, is your "gating-in" factor in the
standards process--they recommend approval of all new or revised
standards projects to the Standards Board. RevCom,
formally known as the Standards Review Committee, is your
"gating-out" factor, since they recommend approval or disapproval
of standards to the Standards Board.
Other
committees under the IEEE-SA Standards Board fulfill additional
elements of oversight, such as creation of the rules and
procedures of the standards process (ProCom),
auditing of sponsor policies and procedures (AudCom), and
advising on patent matters (PatCom).
Altogether, these groups work with the Standards Board to ensure
the continued vitality and effectiveness of the IEEE standards
development program.
More information about the IEEE-SA BOG can be found here.
The IEEE-SA BOG and the IEEE-SA President are elected by the
members of the IEEE-SA--a privilege of membership.
A
presentation on the IEEE-SA Standards Board can be found here.
More information on the Standards Board and its committees
is available.
There is also an FAQ on the
IEEE-SA Standards Board.
Before you
can have a standard, you must have an idea or concept that you
want to standardize. This may be a broad area or a specific point
that you want to address. However, no standard is developed by
one person alone; ultimately, group consensus is required. This
is where the sponsor comes into the picture.
The
sponsor is the organization that assumes responsibility for a
particular standards idea within the IEEE. There has to be some
part of the IEEE that takes responsibility for the technical
content of the document, and this oversight is provided by the
sponsor. This role contrasts with that of the IEEE-SA Standards
Board. The Board determines whether its proper rules and
procedures for standardization have been followed. The sponsor is
responsible for determining the scope and nature of the technical
content. It’s an important distinction, and one that is
often confusing.
Currently,
the IEEE already has a large number of sponsors. There are the
various societies within the IEEE. Within those societies, there
are often many committees that are already active in standards
development. If your work falls under the scope of one of these
committees, then that’s where you should take your work for
further development. This path covers many of the standards
projects developed in the IEEE. Contact the IEEE Standards
Department to speak with the Staff
Liaison to that particular society.
However,
sometimes you want to work in a brand-new area, one that
isn’t covered by an existing committee. In this case, you
have to go to the governing body for standards within a society
to see if they would be willing to sponsor the work. On the other
hand, you may be proposing work that would interest members of
more than one IEEE society. The IEEE-SA Standards Board has
specific entities known as Standards Coordinating Committees
(SCCs), which exist to coordinate standards work that involves
more than one society. These intersociety groups often revolve
around a particular technical area.
The first
step is to make yourself familiar with the technical entities of
the IEEE to see where you would belong. If you can’t find a
place, then appeal to the particular society you’re
interested in or, if the topic is intersociety, to the Board. If
you’re not sure where to go, then contact the IEEE-SA
Standards Board. The IEEE Standards Department is also a good
source of information and can assist you in this
effort.
Many current IEEE
Standards Sponsor working groups can be found here.
The committee structure
of each standards sponsor can be different. For instance the
Power Engineering Society has Technical Committees governing
standards work, while the Computer Society has Standards
Committees under the auspices of its Standards Activities
Board.
A
staff liaison communicates between the IEEE Standards Board and
Department and the standards-developing committees (and vice
versa) to ensure effective and efficient standards
development.
A
list of IEEE Standards Staff Liaisons can be found here.
A
training presentation on the role
the staff liaison serves for you can
be found here.
Model
operating procedures for the SCCs
can be found here.
Model
operating procedures for Standards
Sponsors are available here.
Keep in mind that all Standards Sponsors
need to have procedures that have
been accepted by the IEEE-SA Standards
Board Audit Committee.
The first
thing a sponsor will examine is whether or not there is a viable
base of interest in the technical community to justify a
particular standards project. In other words, you need to show
that there are people who are going to be willing to work on this
task through the time it will take to develop a standard. In
addition, there should be a technical relevance and interest from
industry in the material the standard covers. If industry doesn't
see a need for your standard, its ultimate effectiveness is
greatly reduced. So you need to demonstrate evidence of this
technical necessity to your potential sponsor.
Publicizing the possibility of this standards work is
therefore crucial in whatever venues you may be aware of, such as
technical publications in your field, IEEE Spectrum, and the
IEEE StandardsWire™. If you can show that the standards project is needed
and that there is support in the technical community for its
development, your chances of acceptance by a sponsor are that
much greater. In addition, showing technical relevancy means that
there will be greater interest and participation in your
standards as you go through the development process.
One thing
to realize about sponsors is that their work is often delegated.
In other words, although your sponsor may be a particular
committee within a society, that committee may choose to delegate
the actual work of standards writing to a subcommittee or even to
a specific working group. Each society has its own manner of
operation, and those methods affect the operation of a standards
project as well. You should examine those procedures prior to
asking a society to sponsor your work to make sure you fully
understand and are comfortable with them.
While you
don’t need to be familiar with all the details prior to
beginning a project, a general sense of understanding how the
IEEE Standards Association operates will help you to create
better standards. Another concept that will help you to
understand the benefits of IEEE standardization is to be aware of
the principles that govern the overall standards
process.
Information on starting to develop an IEEE standard can be
found
here.
There are
five imperative principles that drive the standards process: due
process, openness, consensus, balance, and the right of appeal.
These will be examined at the appropriate points throughout this
companion. But why do these imperative principles
exist?
The
primary condition to keep in mind is that standards, unlike many
other types of written guidelines, are quasi-legal documents.
Standards are used as evidence, either to substantiate or to
refute points, in courts of law. Standards also often become
legal requirements as they are adopted by various governments and
by regulatory agencies. When this happens, the content and
decisions in a standard carry far more weight, and the process by
which they are developed falls under scrutiny far more than other
documents and papers. That's why the standards process follows
these imperative principles.
What you
as a standards developer want to avoid is breaking the law, even
inadvertently. If you are aware of these principles and follow
them, then you will be covered by what is known as an
umbrella of indemnification. This rather fancy term means that
you'll be afforded a measure of protection for the actions you
take creating an IEEE standard for the IEEE.
It's
impossible to stress how important these principles are. They are
the basis for all the standards rules that the IEEE and its
societies implement, and you must be aware of and understand them
to be sure that you address them properly during your standards
development process. By setting a legally sound pattern of
development, you'll create a true consensus standard. So it's
vital to be aware of these principles.
The first
two principles to consider are very broad and truly apply to the
overall standards development process. They are due process and
openness.
Due
process is something that we've been discussing all along--it
means having procedures, making them publicly available, and
following them. That's part of the reason for the emphasis on
procedures that has been made up to this point. It means knowing
the procedures of the IEEE Standards Association, the IEEE-SA
Standards Board, your society, and your technical committee. It
also means that you may need some procedures within your working
group.
For
instance, you should establish what constitutes membership in the
working group or what is needed to establish a quorum to vote on
an issue. Check your society procedures first to see if there is
any guidance there. If this is not discussed in your society
procedures, you will need to make public (that is, approve and
disseminate) your rules concerning these and other matters. All
this information needs to be readily available to the public so
that they understand the rules under which you are operating. Due
process ensures a visible operating procedure, which is a major
concern when looking at informing all parties of actions being
taken for standards development.
Openness is also a principle
that applies throughout standards
development. It means ensuring that
everyone has access to the process.
This is accomplished by making sure
that all materially interested and
affected parties can attend any standards
development group meeting, and seeing
that the results of your deliberations
are publicly available. The latter
is usually achieved by having readily
available minutes of meetings, or,
in the case of IEEE Standards Sponsor
ballot resolution, through the ballot
recirculation process.
The
purpose of all this is to avoid the appearance of collusion, or
seeming to obstruct anyone from participating. All IEEE working
group meetings are open, and anyone may attend if interested.
This principle must be employed for every official IEEE
meeting. Any person has a right to attend and contribute to
IEEE standards meetings.
Openness
also provides protection against antitrust situations. Since
standards are so broadly used and often carry the weight of law,
it is important to allow all parties to participate and be heard
to avoid a situation that would imply that any company or
individual was restricted from speaking.
Both of
these principles should be considered from the very start of your
standards process. They are vital to the formation of your
working group and the creation of your PAR.
Imperative
Principles of the Standards Process
Due
Process
Consensus
Openness
Balance
Right of Appeal
The imperative principles of standards development are
important because there have been legal cases brought against
standards organizations. Based on these, the US Supreme Court has
held that standards organizations are responsible for the actions
of their standards developers. That's why you need to follow the
procedures that embody these principles carefully.
A
presentation on the imperative principles can be found here.
Due Process--an imperative principle
A
presentation on writing working group procedures can be found
here.
Model operating procedures for Sponsors can be found
here.
Openness--an imperative principle
Lesson Learned: One of the best methods to
ensure openness is to make sure that your annual reports of
activities are sent to the IEEE Standards Department. That way,
they are available to anyone who asks for them.
The
PAR is
the official document that authorizes work on your standards
project in the IEEE. PARs are approved by the IEEE Standards
Board based on a review and recommendation from NesCom (the
New Standards Committee), one of several Board
committees.
Officially, a standards project
does not exist until a PAR is approved. However, often the
members of a potential working group will have gathered to work
on the PAR and to gain the support of their potential sponsor.
This type of gathering, known as a study group, can exist for up
to six months before a PAR needs to be submitted. (Of course, new
PARs can be developed by existing working groups as additional
projects as well.)
The PAR is
a small, structured, and highly detailed document that
essentially states the reason why your project exists and what it
intends to do. It is perhaps one of the most undervalued
documents in the standards process. Many groups treat the PAR as
their permission to go forward (which, in fact, it is). However,
groups tend to ignore their PAR once they have approval,
concentrating on their draft standard and its ballot. This can be
a mistake.
The PAR is
a legal document, signed by the working group chair and the
sponsor. It is the means by which the working group gains the
umbrella of indemnification from and assigns copyright to the
IEEE. As such, it should never be forgotten.
The PAR's
date of approval also starts the clock running on the standards
project. Officially, a standard cannot take longer than four
years to complete. After this, the sponsor has to request an
extension of time to finalize the project; NesCom decides whether
or not to approve that extension. (If additional time is needed
past that two extensions, then a new PAR must be
submitted.)
It's also
particularly important to make the PAR as useful as possible.
Make sure you have thoroughly read the instructions for filling
out the PAR. Many of the details and much of the experience that
NesCom has gained with ill-formed PARs are addressed
there.
Consolidated information on PARs is available
here.
PAR
forms must be submitted electronically
by the Sponsor or Sponsor Liaison.
You can access the PAR form here.
Instructions
for filling out a PAR are available
here.
NesCom
has a number of conventions
that it follows when it examines PARs.
You should look these conventions
over to see if there are any issues
they address that might directly affect
your PAR.
One of the
most daunting things about the PAR is its highly condensed
format. There is a great deal of information packed onto a few
short pages. You need to be very clear and succinct, both for
NesCom's sake (since NesCom has to understand the PAR in order to
determine whether to recommend approval to the IEEE-SA Standards
Board) and for the sake of anyone else who intends to examine
your PAR (remember that your audience includes people from other
engineering disciplines both within and outside the
IEEE).
There are
several areas of the PAR where confusion commonly abounds. First,
you need to determine what sort of document you intend to
produce. It can be one of the three types of IEEE Standards
documents: standard, recommended practice, or guide. Standards
are primarily made up of mandatory requirements; recommended
practices contain suggested procedures; guides offer guidelines
to follow. These levels of requirement are often shown by the use
of particular "standards verbs"--"shall" for requirements,
"should" for recommendations, and "may" for guidelines. Figuring
out what level of requirement you want to stress helps to
determine what kind of document you should be
creating.
There is
an erroneous assumption that the use of standards verbs means
that you can only use shall, should, or may in a document. The
judgment of a document is made by its overall tone, not by one or
two exceptions to a rule. A standard can say "may." A guide can
say "shall." It is the preponderance of those verbs that raises
any considerations. For instance, if a guide is full of "shall"
statements and only uses "may" a couple of times, is that
document really a guide? Conversely, a standard that almost
always uses "may" may not really be a standard. So consideration
should be given to the overall use of these verbs, but they do
not set an absolute rule on use in a document.
There are
four items in the area where you describe your project, and one
selection should be checked for each item. A standard is either
new, a complete revision of an existing standard, an additional
amendment to an existing standard, or a corrigenda to an existing
standard. All of these types of documents can be offered for full
status or trial use (a period of 24 months, after which the
standards can be considered for full status). In addition, you
may be modifying an existing PAR, for which there is a separate
category. Be sure you're checking off three things in this space:
whether the PAR is new or not, what type of project it is, and
whether it's full status or trial use.
There is
some confusion about what a corrigenda is versus what an
amendment is. First off, let's say what they both are:
both of these documents can make technical corrections to the
base standard. But that's all a corrigenda can do. if you want to
offer additional new material, that can only be done through an
amendment to a base standard. So an easy way to think of it is to
consider an amendment for new material, a corrigenda for
corrections only.
The IEEE
also offers errata sheets. What's the difference between an
errata sheet and a corrigenda? While a corrigenda can correct
errors that are both technical and semantic, an errata sheet can
only correct obvious typographical errors. Because of this, an
errata sheet does not require a PAR and a consensus ballot, while
a corrigenda does.
An area
that may not seem confusing at first is the title. Nonetheless,
this is one of the more problematic sections of the PAR. In many
cases, the difficulties stem from confusion about what a title
really means. Many working groups construct their titles from the
point of view of a closed, self-aware technical community.
Therefore, titles are created that are full of acronyms or that
are exceptionally generic in their expression of scope. It is
crucial to recall that the IEEE is a very broad-based technical
organization, and an acronym that may be very well known to you
and your working group may be completely unknown in another
technical area, or they could be using the same acronym with a
different meaning. So you really need to spell out all the
acronyms on the PAR first, before using the acronym.
In
addition, an exceptionally generic title, such as "Standard for
Reliable Product Development," can lead to confusion in varying
technical committees, where the PAR might be perceived as falling
into their scope. As such, a specific and tightly crafted title
will alleviate confusion and will minimize the possibility that
your PAR approval might be delayed while this confusion is
resolved. Make sure that your industry area is addressed with a
specifically worded, precise title.
Another
area of major confusion is the scope versus the purpose of the
document. The scope and purpose are often confused, or a group
will merely reiterate in one what it has already said in the
other. The scope is what you are trying to cover in the standard;
the purpose is why you believe that this standard needs to exist.
These are two distinct pieces of information that you should not
mix up or repeat. In addition, make sure that your scope is
specific to the task at hand. Don't craft such a broad scope that
it becomes impossible to write the standard. A narrow, specific
scope usually means that the standard will take less time to
develop and will more accurately support a specific need in your
field.
Finally,
if you're submitting a PAR for the revision of a standard, keep
in mind that your scope and purpose should explain what you're
updating and why you're updating that standard. The scope and
purpose should reflect the scope and purpose of the original
standard and clearly indicate what the differences are from that
original standard.
Lesson Learned: The scope and purpose of your
PAR are made available on the IEEE Standards website and will be
shown to anyone who searches for information about your project.
So keep this broad audience in mind when you craft your scope and
purpose.
The list of available errata sheets can be found
here.
Lesson
Learned: Small details also apply to the PAR--remember
that your title should start with the words "Standard for,"
"Recommended Practice for," or "Guide for."
Make sure to check and
see whether your sponsor and/or society have any guidelines for
structuring standards titles--some do!
Scope = what
Purpose =
why
NesCom will only approve PARs where the title, scope and
purpose appear to be sufficiently unambiguous as to be
understandable by a NesCom member working in a technical area
different from the one covered by the PAR.
If you use general terms to represent a range in your title,
scope, or purpose, remember to define that range in your scope or
purpose.
Coordination often causes confusion in the PAR process. The
coordination process has also recently changed. Those changes
streamlined and reduced the responsibilities to the working
groups. The only coordination that is now required to be
fulfilled are three types of mandatory coordination: editorial
coordination, metric coordination, and dictionary (terminology)
coordination. Any other work with organizations interested in the
standard can be done informally by the Sponsor, but they are not
required to show this on the PAR or to show proof of it at the
time the draft is submitted to the IEEE-SA Standards Board for
approval. Proof is now required only for mandatory coordination;
the Sponsor needs to show that comments from this type of
coordination have been satisfied.
One
relatively new question that has led to some confusion concerns
international standards. The PAR form asks if you know whether
your standard will serve as the basis of an international
standard. This is asked to ensure that the IEEE staff working
with the various aspects of international development is aware of
your project and will assist you in moving this document forward.
The international approval process can be complicated and time
consuming, and using the available expertise to assist you with
this is recommended at the earliest stages so that your standard
and its international counterpart stay synchronized. So this
question on the PAR exists both to prompt you to its
consideration and to make others aware of any actions they may
need to take in this case.
The IEEE now has three types of standards balloting. The first
is the traditional balloting process by individuals only. The
second allows a mixed balloting group made of non-individuals and
individuals. The third allows a ballot group made up of
non-individuals only (non-individuals can be entities like
corporations, organizations, etc.).
In all of these types of balloting groups, each entity
(individual or not) has one vote. This reflects the membership
options in the IEEE Standards Association. Entities can name a
representative and an alternate to cover personnel issues. In
mixed balloting, a person can vote for himself or herself and
also represent an organization.
Lesson
Learned: If your ballot is
conducted by the IEEE Balloting Center, the Center will assist
you with mandatory coordination by circulating copies of the
draft standard to the mandatory coordination points.
Without
question, one of the most confusing, bewildering elements of a
PAR is its designation (or number). It is important to understand
that designations are not determined by the working group. They
are determined by IEEE staff with oversight by NesCom. If your
working group is developing a family of related standards, you
may recommend a designation in the cover letter with your PAR
submittal, but you cannot actually determine that
number.
The
primary area of confusion here is the issue of a number for a
family of standards versus a number for amendments or corrigenda.
When documents are related but always meant to be separate, they
should be joined by a related base number, such as 123. A tag
will be added to this base, 123.n, where .n will serve as the
particular number of that separate document. Amendments and
corrigenda, on the other hand, are meant to amend a base standard
and will eventually become a part of a base standard. They are
numbered with the base standard's designation and a letter
immediately following that designation, 123a. The question for
your working group is whether or not your document "will become a
part of" another document. If you do not intend that document to
merge with an already existing project, then it is not an
amendment or a corrigenda.
The PAR
form also asks if you are aware of any trademarks or already
copyrighted material that you intend to incorporate into your
standard. Sometimes this is impossible to know at the beginning
of your standard's development, but it's a crucial subject to
keep in mind throughout the development process. It's best to
identify these situations as soon as possible and act on them
accordingly.
The PAR
also asks you to identify any standards with a similar scope and
to explain why a new standard is needed so that NesCom can
evaluate this request with an understanding of the context for
its development. Finally, health, safety, and environmental
issues should be highlighted as well.
Lesson
Learned: Do not attach too much
value to any one designation. The number is merely a moniker, a
means of identifying a project. When that number becomes fraught
with meaning, as in having all the work of a particular standards
committee fall under that designation, then the numbering schemes
often become convoluted and complex. It is best to avoid this
situation entirely by keeping numbering schemes simple and by
remembering that the number is a label, nothing more, and that
users have the capacity to learn a new label.
PARs are
reviewed and recommended for approval by NesCom. There are review
periods to allow NesCom to review the proposed PARs. IEEE staff
will also examine your PAR, try to pinpoint any problem areas,
and work with you to correct them prior to distributing the PARs
to NesCom. However, if your PAR arrives too close to the
deadline, staff cannot guarantee that they will have the time for
a thorough review, and problems may arise at the NesCom meeting.
The point is, the earlier you can submit your PAR, the
better.
In addition, NesCom has now created a method for continuous
processing of PARs. This allows NesCom to approve PARs
outside of the face-to-face meetings held four times a year. This
can mean a reduction of up to 50 days in your PAR processing.
The NesCom Administrator will determine if your PAR can be
approved through continuous processing. Key factors are no
immediate visible problems with the PAR submission and timing
relative to the next NesCom meeting. All work is done
electronically.
When the members of NesCom review PARs, they often have
comments and questions about that PAR. You should respond to any
comments or questions that are sent to you by the NesCom
administrator. A lack of response may head to a delay in approval
or even disapproval of your PAR.
PARs also
need to be signed by the working group chair and the sponsor or
sponsor liaison, and NesCom needs to receive both of these
signatures before the PAR will be considered. NesCom also
requires that the sponsor or the sponsor liaison does the actual
PAR submission.
Finally,
the PAR, like the standard it encapsulates, is a living document.
Just as a standard evolves and changes, so does a PAR. However,
many groups don't consider these two items as synonymous and
never look at their PAR after it is approved. For instance, as a
standard evolves, it may change direction, and the PAR may need
to be revised to reflect those changes. You should be careful to
ensure that your scope specifically covers exactly what you want
to standardize.
One of the
items RevCom (the
IEEE Standards Review Committee, which recommends final approval
or disapproval of draft standards to the IEEE-SA Standards Board)
examines at final submittal is whether the title, scope, and
purpose of the document match the PAR. If they do not, then
RevCom may reject the document until clarification is given. What
often happens to working groups is that they don't look at a PAR
while they're developing their standard and don't realize that
the final document is diverging from the original PAR. If this
happens, then the PAR needs to be revised prior to your RevCom
submission.
Factors
that should motivate a PAR revision are a change in the type of
document (standard to recommended practice, for example), a
change in the scope, a change to the purpose, or a technical
change to the title. Any other major change (such as a change in
sponsor or type of balloting group) should also motivate a PAR
change. When submitting a PAR revision, make sure that the new
scope and purpose reflect the full scope and purpose of the
original project, along with any changes.
What
should be avoided is submitting your standard to RevCom,
discovering your PAR is out of date, and then trying to submit a
PAR to NesCom at the same meeting. The Board frowns upon this,
and the members of the Board committees may choose to delay
RevCom submission for a meeting cycle until the PAR is approved.
(NesCom and RevCom meet at the same time, which causes the
conflict.) So it pays to examine the PAR at several stages during
the development process to ensure its validity.
The lifetime of a PAR is four years, and most IEEE standards
projects are completed within that time frame. But sometimes
projects do take longer than four years to complete. Perhaps your
group has been dealing with some particularly contentious issues,
or perhaps there's been a great deal of turnover in the personnel
in your sponsor group. But whatever the reason, if this happens,
you will need to ask for a PAR extension.
NesCom has a form
available at the IEEE Standards website. You will need to fill
out this form and NesCom will use it to determine the approval of
the PAR extension. Some of the things NesCom will look for are
proof of current, active work in the sponsor, status of the draft
document, and estimated time to completion.
Time is the important element to a PAR extension. Be sure to
file your request for an extension before the four-year
life of your PAR is up! NesCom has a policy for administrative
withdrawal of inactive PARs, and you want to make sure that your
PAR is not considered in this manner.
NesCom
Checklist
1) Has an appropriate box
in each category of the PAR been checked?
2) Is the scope unique from the purpose? Are both descriptive of
the project?
3) Has the chair signed the copyright agreement?
4) Did the sponsor submit the PAR electronically to the NesCom
Administrator?
5) Is the title correctly structured and unambiguous?
6) Are all acronyms spelled out?
A
FAQ on continuous processing and PARs can be found here.
Remember that only the Sponsor or Sponsor Liaison can submit
a PAR to NesCom for consideration.
The Sponsor and Working Group Chair need to be IEEE-SA
members.
There is guidance
available on how to fill out the working group chair change
form.
There is guidance available on how to fill out a
revised PAR form. All revised PARS should indicate what has
changed from the previous PAR.
PARs can also be
withdrawn, if the need for the standard no longer exists. You
should include a brief explanation of the need for the withdrawal
when you submit your request.
Lesson
Learned: Don't throw out the
approval letter sent with your approved PAR; you'll need it for
your RevCom submission.
There is guidance available on how to fill out a
request to extend your PAR. Keep in mind that revising your
PAR does not automatically extend its four-year life.
Now that
your PAR is approved, you are now part of an officially
sanctioned working group preparing an IEEE document. Keep in mind
that the working group is independent from the balloting
group. The latter is formed by special rules, and usually isn't
determined until right before the ballot starts.
IEEE
working groups are open to anyone to participate--participants
don't have to be IEEE-SA members. However, it's usual to have a
procedure for determining voting rights in the working group.
This can be as simple as "anyone can vote anytime" to more
elaborate rules that allow someone to vote after attending a
certain number of meetings (and the right of voting is contingent
on continued attendance). However, none of these voting rules
would preclude an individual's right to participate and comment
at any meeting.
A working
group usually has a hierarchy of officers to ensure that the work
proceeds smoothly. There must be a working group chair, as shown
on the PAR. The working group chair is appointed by the sponsor.
In some cases, the working group chair will serve for a finite,
defined term or will go through regular votes of confirmation
from the working group depending on the Sponsor rules. It is the
role of the chair to provide leadership and guidance during the
standards development process, helping move towards completion of
the finished standard. The chair also serves as a point of
contact for people who have technical questions or comments about
the content of the standard.
The
working group chair will plan the meetings and organize the work.
It also helps if the chair delegates assignments for developing
parts of the standard to members of the working group.
The chair
may also choose to have other officers in the working group, such
as a vice chair, secretary, or technical editor. All of these
roles could aid the chair and the group in moving their project
forward. A vice chair can assist the chair in all areas,
including running the meeting when the chair is absent or wishes
to recuse himself or herself.
The
secretary serves as recordkeeper, taking and maintaining minutes
of meetings, lists of action items, and rosters of attendees. The
secretary may also send out mailings of minutes, papers, and
drafts to the committee. The technical editor works specifically
on maintaining the draft standard, a process that may be
complicated. The technical editor also works as a liaison with an
IEEE
Standards Project Editor to detect and solve any problems
early in the development process and to ensure the integrity of
the standard in the publication process after
approval.
If needed,
a treasurer may also serve in the working group, collecting and
processing any meeting dues and handling any bills that are
incurred. A ballot coordinator works on distributing the tasks
involved in ballot resolution so that they move more quickly.
These positions are often filled by the chair, but there is
nothing to preclude working group election of these roles if it
is felt to be necessary.
Some notes and tips about what you should remember after
approval of your PAR are available.
Consolidated information on working group development is
here.
You can find further
information on voting rights in the working group procedures
presentation, available here.
You need to submit a roster of
working group members to the IEEE annually for its records.
Information on how to do this can be found
here.
