Ballot work actually begins while you're
finalizing your draft, with the formation of
your balloting group. Many sponsors have
particular rules for how the balloting group is
to be formed, so you should examine those
carefully before taking any action. It is the
responsibility of the sponsor to form
the balloting group.
In some cases, this may involve the
membership of an active committee or committees;
in other cases it may involve inviting a wide
variety of interested parties to participate in
balloting by forming an invitation pool. Ballot
invitations are open for a minimum of 15 days.
Keep in mind that the balloting group is
different from the working group, and working
group members may not be automatically included
in a balloting group. You need to ensure that
you understand your sponsor's policies for
forming balloting groups and not assume that you
are already in one!
You may also want to announce or publicize
the upcoming ballot in various media. In any
case, forming a balloting group takes time, so
don't wait until your draft is absolutely ready
to ballot to start this task. (But you also
don't want to form your balloting group too
early so that the group information doesn't
become outdated.)
You will use the myBallot system to create
your balloting group and sending an "invitation
to ballot" to a pre-existing invitation pool. IEEE
Standards Staff Liaison or Balloting
Center Staff can assist you throughout this
balloting process.
Your balloting group must be one of the
following types (as stated on your PAR):
a mixed balloting group made up of both
individuals and non-individuals, individuals
only, or non-individuals only. Mixed balloting
is the most flexible format and should be your
default position. Non-individuals may have a
primary and an alternate representative to the
balloting group, but only one vote will count in
the ballot (and the primary's vote is always
preferred).
The primary concern when forming your
balloting group is also one of the imperative
principles of the standards process:
balance. A balloting group must consist
of a balance of a variety of interests, with no
domination by any one group or company.
(Contrast this with the working group, where
anyone can freely participate.) Therefore,
determining a balloting group doesn't involve
just looking at potential balloters, but at how
they fit into the overall picture of balance.
The goal of balance is to have representation
from all interested parties, but to avoid an
overwhelming influence by any one of those
parties.
Balance is usually achieved by potential
balloters placing themselves into one of four
categories: producers, users, government, and
general interest (additional classifications can
be added when needed). The sponsor then examines
these requests to see if balance has been
achieved. If not, they will work with the
balloters to see if it is possible to shift them
into another category. The only requirement to
join a balloting group is an interest in the
subject, an IEEE Web Account, and IEEE-SA
membership or payment of the appropriate fees.
Balloting groups should have at least 10 members
to help ensure this balance.
Once the balloting group is formed, the
composition of that balloting group cannot
change throughout the duration of the ballot and
any subsequent recirculation ballots. (The
composition of the ballot group can be changed
up until the time when the first ballot starts.)
Comments are considered from anyone who
contributes them and must be addressed, but the
only votes that count towards approval of the
document are those of the eligible members of
the balloting group.
If a balloter passes away or is incapacitated
during the time of ballot, the IEEE rules allow
for their removal from the ballot group before
the close of the first ballot. After the first
ballot, the current vote of that balloter will
stand, since it can't be resolved.
What a balloting group is trying to achieve
is the imperative principle of consensus.
Consensus means agreement among the
majority. It does not mean unanimity. A
balloting group does not need to achieve 100%
approval, or even 95% or 90%. According to the
IEEE rules, consensus is defined as a minimum
75% return of ballots from the balloting group,
and a 75% approval rate from that 75% return
group. If this is reached, then consensus has
been achieved according to the IEEE definition.
There are several rules that help to define
what final level of consensus you reach. All
ballot comments have to be responded to, and in
considering a response you may make a change in
the draft that may turn a no vote into a yes
vote. The issue is what you do to balance your
obligations to the majority versus that of the
minority. Once you have achieved consensus, an
obligation to the majority exists to approve and
publish the standard quickly. However, you are
obligated to respond to the negative comments of
the minority. You should attempt to resolve
those negative comments, but if there is no
indication that further resolution can be
achieved based on that, you should move your
document forward for approval, still having met
the terms of consensus.
Complete information on the IEEE
Standards balloting process is available.
Go here
to join the various invitation pools that are
used to form balloting groups for IEEE standards
projects. A training presentation on how
to join an invitation pool is also
available.
A training presentation on creating your
invitation to join a balloting group can be
found here.
An FAQ on forming your balloting group
can be found here.
There is more information on ballot
invitations here.
Forming a balloting group and running an
invitation take time! Make sure in your
scheduling that you have left enough time for
the invitation (about 30 days) and for resolving
issues with balance afterwards.
Balance--an imperative
principle
The IEEE Standards program uses
electronic balloting. Email and web access are
required for all balloters. Contact your IEEE
Standards Staff Liaison for more
information.
A ballot
is conducted for a certain period of time,
usually 30-60 days. At this point, balloters are
expected to return their ballots with one of
three votes: approve, disapprove, or abstain. A
balloter can approve with comments; disapproval
should come with comments, the acceptance of
which would enable the balloter to change his or
her vote to approve. A balloter can also abstain
for either a lack of time, a lack of expertise,
or for other reasons as specified by the
balloter. Your first goal is to see if you can
achieve a 75% return on your ballot. Otherwise,
the ballot will fail. If you do not have a 75%
return on the date the ballot is to close, you
may extend the ballot for an additional period
of up to 60 days or until a 75% return is
achieved (whichever comes first). You should
contact balloters and urge them to send in their
ballots. Often, balloters haven't had the time
to address the document and can be urged to do
so.
However, if you can't get the necessary 75%
ballot return within this time, the ballot will
fail. At this point, you should re-form your
balloting group (usually including those
individuals who responded the first time) and
start over again, trying to obtain a 75% return.
If you have achieved a 75% return, however,
you can move onto the next stage of examining
your rate of approval. Your goal is to have a
75% rate of approval from your returns, so your
first step is to see how many approval votes you
have and to address their comments, if any.
Next, you must examine your negative ballots
with any comments. Those comments should explain
any difficulties the balloter has with the
current document and offer precise wording for
changes that would turn their "no" vote into a
"yes" vote. In many cases, the balloter may
offer vague solutions or even no solution at
all. At this point, the working group (or a
group established to resolve ballots) should
examine the problem to see if they can resolve
it on their own, or they may discuss the
situation with the balloter and solicit more
precise language. If a negative vote comes
without comments, it cannot be resolved and does
not count towards that percentage of the total
votes needed for approval.
Remember, the primary purpose of ballot
resolution is to create a document that gains a
75% approval rate from those who voted. There is
no obligation to satisfy all concerns once a 75%
approval has been gained.
Abstentions are a concern because if 30% or
more of your ballot returns are abstentions, the
ballot will fail. If you are close to this
figure it is wise to contact some balloters who
have abstained to ensure that they will vote
"yes" or "no" at the next recirculation of the
ballot.
Resolving negative ballots is easily the most
time-consuming aspect of the balloting process.
Many working groups will break a document down
into sections and have a small group assigned to
the comments on that section. In many cases,
what needs to be judged is whether satisfying
the concerns of a negative balloter will reduce
overall consensus from the majority of
balloters. If so, then the negative ballot may
need to remain unresolved.
Sometimes the ballot review group (see Annex B) won't
accept the proposal from the balloter but will
offer alternative wording that the balloter will
agree with. Sometimes the ballot review group
will accept the comment outright. In either
case, this would allow a balloter to change his
or her "no" vote to a "yes" vote. Sometimes
resolving the comment is not acceptable and the
ballot will remain unresolved.
In some cases, the negative balloter may be
contacted to see if he or she will change the
vote or perhaps be willing to work out a
compromise solution. This contact may be by
phone initially. You should confirm all
decisions in writing (email is acceptable).
The major element in all of these
considerations is the time factor. All of this
work of tallying and reviewing comments, coming
to agreement on the action to take in regard to
those comments, and making the necessary changes
to the draft can be extremely time-consuming. In
addition, people change jobs, people retire, and
other circumstances arise that can affect a
balloting group. The ballot review group should
therefore set a goal for itself of when they
hope to conclude ballot review and attempt to
stick to it if at all possible. Otherwise,
ballot resolution can drag on interminably. Keep
in mind the four-year life of your PAR, and
develop a plan that will work with moving the
project forward under that particular
requirement.
Ballot comments can also fall into one of two
categories--technical or editorial. You should
consider having your balloters to classify their
type of ballot objections. Identifying these
changes can assist the ballot review group
greatly. But no matter what type of comment, all
unresolved negative comments and the resulting
changes must be recirculated.
The working group should also offer examples
to the members of the balloting group on how
to submit their ballot comments. Many
balloters may be first-time balloters, and it is
better to offer them an outline format and
structure to follow than to offer them nothing
at all. The latter will invariably result in
unclear ballot comments, which will only delay
the committee's ability to resolve them.
Above all, keep in mind that the goal is to
achieve a75% approval rate in a timely manner.
If the ballot objection raises a vital point
that should be changed, make that change. If the
ballot objection has merit but would severely
reduce consensus, decide if there is any merit
in making such a decision (in other words, is
the loss of consensus worth the technical
gain?). If the ballot objection would severely
reduce consensus and offer only a minor change,
then you should probably not make it. Good
technical judgment should be exercised at all
times when examining the ballot.
Complete information on the IEEE
Standards ballot stage is here.
What you need to do to start a ballot is
available here.
A training presentation on sponsor
balloting can be found here.
Lesson Learned: Ballots can take 30-60 days, remember to
build enough time into your schedule.
Lesson Learned: It's not
enough just to have a 75% approval rate from
your balloting group. Make sure that the
comments associated with negative votes have
been addressed and recirculated to the balloting
group.
Lesson Learned: Be careful in your assessment of
comments, and be sure that you've examined them
impartially and fairly. Don't use the "loss of
consensus" argument to dismiss comments without
consideration of their merits.
See Annex
B for further information on resolving
negative ballots and their comments.
Once the ballot review group has examined and
dealt with all comments, the working group must
recirculate the ballot if there is a need for
that. The major reasons for recirculation are
that new technical changes have been introduced
in the document or that there are unresolved
negative comments. The full balloting group has
the right to examine these along with any
revisions to the document and determine whether
they want to maintain their vote.
For instance, there may be an unresolved
negative ballot on a major technical point.
While the ballot review group may have felt that
making this change would severely reduce
consensus, they may discover the exact opposite
through the ballot recirculation process--that
enough of their balloters agree with the
unresolved negative and change their "yes" votes
to "no" votes that consensus is reduced. So
recirculation serves a valuable role in the
balloting process.
Note, however, that a balloter can only
change his or her vote based on the changed
portions of the standard, or on the unresolved
negatives. Balloters cannot change their votes
based on a clause they have previously seen and
approved (unless that clause is affected by the
new material or ballot comments). The balloting
group is ultimately reesponsible, as a whole,
for the content of the entire document.
Therefore, balloters should review all comments
and proposed resolutions to determine if they
should change their votes.
Recirculations normally do not take the time
that regular ballots do--most are only about 10
days in length. If the document is large and the
number of ballot comments and changes
commensurately dense, the working group may
choose to make the recirculation ballot period
longer--even up to the length of the original
ballot. However, you should aim for a rapid
completion of recirculation. It will be hard for
your balloting group to review the document over
and over, so a cogent, fast review period could
be useful here.
Remember that balloters are not required to
respond to recirculation ballots if they have
already voted previously. Unless they want to
change their votes, their previous votes or
abstentions still stand in effect. If they now
support the document, it is important that the
negative balloters from the initial ballot cast
votes in the recirculation ballot. If not, their
previous negative votes will stand.
Once you've met the goals of a 75% reutrn
rate from your balloting group and a 75%
approval rate from that return group, and there
are no new negative comments within the scope of
the recirculation to address, then you should
avoid conducting additional recirculations in
the hope of gaining larger approval rates.
One other, related step needs to be made
during the ballot process. Way back when your
PAR was approved, it included mandatory
coordination with the IEEE editorial staff;
with SCC10 (definitions); and with SCC14, the
committee that oversees metric usage in the
IEEE. This mandatory coordination is usually
fulfilled during the ballot, although it is
better to get your editorial comments before you
prepare your draft for ballot.
Previously, the IEEE had a detailed listing
of coordination with outside organizations
included on each PAR. New rules now state that
outside coordination is at the option of the
sponsor, and the sponsor no longer needs to show
any proof of completed coordination to RevCom.
Organizations interested in coordination should
have participation in the balloting group.
Mandatory coordination occurs through the
IEEE Standards Department.
SCC10 (Standards Coordinating Committee
10--Terms and Definitions) is the group that
coordinates the IEEE Dictionary. Coordination
with this group is required. Usually, this is
done through circulation of drafts. SCC10 will
review your draft and offer comment on your
definitions, which should be considered and, if
possible, incorporated.
Editorial coordination involves review by
IEEE Staff Project Editors during the
development process to avoid major problems of
structure and style that should be corrected as
early as possible in the development process.
SCC14 (Standards Coordinating Committee 14--
Quantities, Units, and Letter Symbols)
coordination will ensure a review of your draft
for the proper use of metric units and to ensure
that metric symbols are employed. In addition,
SCC14 will determine if an exception needs to be
made in your case.
Keep in mind that RevCom will expect you to
satisfy the comments received from mandatory
coordination. In particular, pay attention to
your comments from editorial coordination. It's
invaluable to have at least one draft reviewed
prior to your ballot to avoid major structural
problems with your document. Also, make sure
that you don't change the document after your
final ballot. Moving annexes or making
technical changes to the text should not be done
at this time.
The IEEE Board of Directors adopted a policy
that promotes metric usage in the IEEE and
directed the IEEE-SA Standards Board and its
staff to implement this policy. Therefore,
inclusion of metric unit symbols should be made
rather than English units. Both can be used if
better comprehension will be gained with the
English units, but the metric units will be used
in the body of the standard. RevCom has members
who specifically check on metric usage, and you
should be aware of this. Exceptions to this
policy can be provided by the IEEE-SA Standards
Board on a case-by-case basis.
SCC10 and editorial coordination can both be
accomplished by circulation of a draft to the
IEEE Standards Department. SCC14 review will
also occur automatically during your ballot
(speak with your IEEE
Standards Staff Liaison if you need more
information). If you should receive comments
from the mandatory coordinating bodies, you need
to address them.
The final type of comments you will receive
will be from nonballoters. Sometimes people will
find out about a ballot too late to be allowed
into a balloting group. However, they can still
obtain a draft and offer comments, which the
working group is obligated to consider and
respond to. Because they are not part of the
balloting group, resolution of nonballoters'
comments does not affect RevCom submittal.
However, the working group should not ignore
potentially valuable technical input when it is
offered just because the person is not part of
the balloting group.
So consideration and circulation of the
unresolved negative is required, but
satisfaction of the commentors is not. However,
keep in mind that the right of appeal exists for
everyone, and the best way to avoid an appeal is
to listen to everyone's concerns.
Sometimes, despite everyone's best efforts, a
ballot will fail. Perhaps the 75% ballot return
can't be achieved, a 75% approval rate can't be
attained, or the rate of abstentions is 30% or
more. When this happens, the decision on what to
do with the standard is left to the sponsor. The
sponsor has a number of choices. It can reballot
the document, re-form the balloting group,
revise the draft, or consider creating a
trial-use standard. If ballot failure occurs,
you should consult with your IEEE
Standards Staff Liaison to help decide on
the appropriate step to take.
Finally, since RevCom approval is the next
hurdle you must leap over, knowing and
satisfying what they consider important will
help you to move toward achieving your goal of
final approval.
Ballot recirculations must
include
-- Either the entire revised document,
the revised clauses or subclauses, or a complete
list of all changes -- The outstanding negatives and the
ballot review committee's responses to them with
the reasons for rejecting the proposed
changes -- The names of the negative
balloters -- A list of all "no" to "yes" vote
changes due to resolution of the negative
comments
Further information on recirculations,
resolution, and their role in the balloting
process can be found here.
Lesson Learned: Remember,
balloting and submitting your draft for approval
are officially the responsibility of the
sponsor. Make sure you know of and follow your
sponsor procedures in these areas!
What RevCom Typically Looks For
1) Was the balloting group
balanced?
2) If the ballot was delegated
to a subordinate committee, is there a record of
that delegation?
3) Was the ballot valid
with at least a 75% return and less than 30%
abstentions?
4) Did the ballot pass by at least
75%?
5) Does the document match the
title/scope/purpose of the PAR authorizing the
work? (Note that title changes that are still
within the PAR's scope and purpose are
acceptable.)
6) Was coordination with the
required bodies achieved? Was coordination
accomplished via the required
method?
7) Were all members of the balloting
group given an opportunity to see all the
outstanding negatives and reasons why they could
not be resolved?
8) Were all members of the balloting
group given an opportunity to change their vote
as a result of changes made to resolve negative
ballots?
9) If there are patent or copyright
issues involved, are there patent or copyright
letters included in the submission package and
has IEEE staff reviewed and approved such
letters?
10) Are there any major technical or
procedural
oversights?
Approval of an IEEE standard is achieved by
submitting the document and supporting material
to RevCom,
which issues a recommendation that is ratified
or denied by the IEEE-SA Standards Board.
Crucial things to remember at this stage are to
supply all the necessary documentation, such as
rebuttals to unresolved negative ballots. You
should also examine your PAR
to ensure that the final document you have
produced is still within the scope defined by
the PAR. You should check that the PAR title and
final title match. RevCom will check over all
the documentation and make sure that you have
followed the procedures. RevCom will not
determine anything concerning the technical
nature of your document. That is the role of the
balloting group.
RevCom examines whether or not you have
followed the principles of consensus, due
process, openness, and balance throughout your
project development. RevCom will carefully
examine your resolution of negative votes to
ensure that this has been done.
All packages submitted to RevCom must be
received by a certain deadline, which is set for
each meeting. However, RevCom does offer an
early consideration cycle for submissions that
arrive early and that appear to be complete
submissions. Therefore, making sure your
materials are carefully and clearly organized so
there is no confusion at RevCom could allow you
to benefit from the early consideration program.
Finally, keep in mind that RevCom and NesCom
merely make recommendations to the IEEE-SA
Standards Board for approval or disapproval of a
project via a consent agenda. Projects can, and
often have been, pulled off this consent agenda
for further discussion or a recommended change
of action. Final approval of all documents and
PARs ultimately rests with the IEEE-SA Standards
Board. And remember, all IEEE-SA Standards Board
and committee meetings are open for you to
attend.
Sometimes a standard doesn't follow this
development path quite as smoothly as it should.
Perhaps your working group isn't able to come to
immediate agreement, or perhaps the technology
being standardized is evolving rapidly. When you
feel you need to receive input from a broad base
in your technical community or if you're having
difficulty resolving certain negative ballots,
you might want to consider the option of
distributing your standard as a trial-use
standard.
Trial-use standards are valid for a two-year
period. They are distributed in the same broad
manner as full-status standards, but they may
not yet be at a final stage of development. At
the end of the two-year period, the standard can
either be accepted as a full-status standard (if
no comments were received) if the sponsor
recommends this, or it can be returned to the
working group for further development and
balloting.
No ballot is required to upgrade a standard
from trial use to full status if no comments (or
purely editorial comments) were received. The
sponsor merely submits a request to upgrade the
standard to full-use to RevCom. If technical
comments were received and changes are required,
then a PAR for revision of the standard needs to
be submitted to NesCom. A cut-off date for
comments is included in the published standard
to allow the working group time to revise and
reballot the standard prior to the end of the
trial-use period should that be needed.
The trial-use method has proven to be very
effective for some sponsors. It does allow broad
use and adoption of a standard over which there
is general agreement but still some uncertainty.
If you have reached an impasse in your standards
development activity, think of exploring the
benefits of the trial-use standard.
The final imperative principle behind
standardization is that of the right
of appeal. In the IEEE Standards program
there are two types of appeals: procedural and
technical. Appeals can be made by anyone at any
point in the process, but prior to standards
approval they will automatically be given, via
the sponsor, to the working group to be
addressed. Once the standard is approved, if
there is still a concern an appeal can be
addressed to the IEEE-SA Standards Board.
Appeals of approved standards are automatically
given to the sponsor. Appeals are handled by the
IEEE-SA Standards Board after processes within
the sponsor are exhausted.
Appeals must be filed within a certain time
limit as specified by the IEEE-SA
Standards Board Operations Manual, and
there is a timetable for responses as well. The
IEEE-SA Standards Board usually handles appeals
by setting up a special appeals committee, which
will determine whether or not there's a need for
a hearing on the issue and make a recommendation
based on its consensus judgment. The appeals
committee is made up of Board members who were
not actively involved in the standard's
development.
Complete information on the final
approval process can be found here.
A FAQ on submitting a draft for approval
can be found here.
You can find material on submitting your
document here.
A training presentation on the RevCom
process is available.
RevCom is using an electronic process in
the same manner as NesCom. This allows for
submissions outside of the regular Standards
Board meeting schedule during the year.
1) Form
for Submittal of Proposed Standards 2)
Balloting authority (if delegated) 3) Ballot
summary 4) Copies of unresolved negative
comments and sponsor rebuttal; if negative is
resolved, need signature of balloter to verify
resolution 5) PAR and PAR approval
letter 6) Coordination responses 7)
Permission release(s) if applicable 8)
Working group roster (if not in draft) 9) A
copy of the electronic file that produced the
last balloted draft with the software used
identified
RevCom has a number of conventions
that you should examine prior to
submission.
Some working groups know they want to
receive the broad input from a trial-use period
right from the beginning of their work; that's
why there's a category for trial use on the PAR
form.
Right of Appeal--an imperative
principle
Lesson Learned: Many
appeals that have been presented to the
Standards Board have been technical in nature.
If your appeal has already been heard and denied
at the sponsor level, going to the IEEE-SA
Standards Board with it will not be beneficial.
The Board will remand it to the sponsor, which
will probably not change an earlier opinion. The
Board will examine a procedural appeal, but many
merely mask technical issues. Make sure your
issue is truly procedural if you wish to use
this method of appeal.
So once your standard has been developed,
balloted, and approved, your work is done,
right? Well, not quite. Publication,
interpretations, and other future developments
need to be considered.
When your standard has been approved, it is
not yet complete. It will receive a thorough,
detailed edit from a professional IEEE standards
editor. The role of an editor is to ensure that
the standard is grammatically and syntactically
correct using American English. It is not an
editor's role to make any changes that affect
the technical meaning of the standard--indeed,
this is not allowed. The editor can, however,
make rewordings, editorial changes, and
formatting changes to assist in publication of
the standard. The editor also ensures that the
document meets the rules for IEEE standards
style as outlined in the IEEE
Standards Style Manual.
The editor normally works with a primary
contact point for the working group (usually the
chair or technical editor). The editor will
discuss any questions or potentially problematic
changes with this contact. The contact will also
receive pages of the final standard to review
and approve prior to publication.
The editorial process is quite
painstaking--there are very few people who read
the standard in as detailed a manner as the
editor. Depending on the length of the document,
this can take some time to complete. Therefore,
working groups should be patient when it comes
to receiving their edited standard.
Sometimes during the process of review the
editor or the working group will find errors in
the approved standard. Glaringly obvious
typographical errors are fixed, but sometimes
these errors consist of things like incorrect
numbers in an equation, an incorrectly drawn
figure, or a major misstatement in a paragraph.
It is the IEEE editor's job to determine if
these changes are editorial and can be made
straightforwardly. By the very nature of their
job, the editors are conservative in their
acknowledgment of these requests for technical
changes or corrections. In many cases, the
action taken will be to go to the next RevCom
meeting that occurs during publication
preparation and ask for RevCom's review and
opinion of the technical change. If RevCom will
approve the technical change, it can be made. If
not, it has to be saved for an amendment or a
future revision. (Keep in mind that if more
straightforward typos are found after
publication, an errata sheet can be issued at
that time.)
The working group chair or a delegate is
responsible for reviewing the edited and
formatted pages from which the published
standard will be printed. This thorough review
should ensure that no glaring errors have crept
into the document during the editorial and
publishing process. This review is usually made
in a timely fashion to facilitate publication of
the standard. After review and inclusion of any
changes, the document can be published and
disseminated as an IEEE standard.
Many draft standards today are being
developed in various electronic word processing
programs. The IEEE Standards Department also
uses such programs, and it's crucial that you
contact and work with the IEEE standards staff
throughout your standard's development to ensure
that the program you are using is compatible
with the IEEE's. The IEEE
Standards Style Manual details many of
the types of electronic forms that are
acceptable, but you should always double-check
with the department first.
Some groups may want to produce an electronic
product along with their standard, such as a
diskette of computer code that the standard
requires you to implement. In these cases, the
groups should let their IEEE project editor know
as soon as possible what it is they would like
to do so that work on that can begin promptly.
Once your standard has been approved and
published, your primary task is completed. In
many cases, working groups are dissolved, or
they may move on to developing other standards.
However, there are reasons to maintain some
contact with working group members over the
years. One of these is interpretations.
Details on the IEEE Standards
publication process are here.
A training presentation on the roles of
IEEE Standards project editors can be found here.
A FAQ on IEEE Editorial Services can be
found here.
To provide transparency to the standards
development process, lists of the working group
members and the balloting group members who
voted are provided in the introduction to the
standard. The list of ballot resolution group
members may be provided in the introduction of
the standard.
Lesson Learned: Some
ground rules do apply to preparing electronic
files of draft standards: always keep the art in
a separate file from the text, try to keep use
of special fonts and styles to a minimum, and
avoid complex formatting. This will reduce
translation problems. If you wish to format your
document to match the published style for IEEE
standards, contact your project editor or the IEEE
Standards Publishing Manager first.
Lesson Learned: Art files are often the most difficult
for the IEEE Standards Department to work with.
Make sure you contact the department early in
your development process to avoid any
difficulties in using
figures.
Once a standard is approved, its major
technical development is complete. However,
questions may arise concerning the language used
in the standard, the intention or result meant
by a particular action, etc. When a question of
meaning like this arises, an individual can
write to the Secretary of the IEEE-SA Standards
Board asking for interpretation
of the passage in question. This request is then
forwarded to the sponsor for action. It is
expected that a group will develop a response to
the interpretation request and send it to the
requestor (with a copy sent to the IEEE).
Often, however, someone may just be seeking
an explanation
of the reasons behind what the standard said,
rather than an interpretation of the language
itself. The Sponsor has the right to label an
interpretation request as an explanation if it
feels this is correct. The Sponsor can use
whatever method it wants to issue an explanation
and return that response to the requestor. The
explanation should also be considered if the
standard is revised or amended, as this may be
an area of the standard that requires further
clarification.
Completed interpretations are first made
available at the IEEE
Standards website. Interpretations must be
completed nine months after any request was
classified as an interpretation. They may be
published with the standard they interpret,
either bound in on the next printing or rolled
into a collection of standards. In some cases,
the volume of interpretations being generated by
a committee may be great enough to merit
publication of a separate interpretations
volume.
Interpretations are a unique form of
commentary on the standard. They are not
statements of what the standard should have done
or meant to say. Interpretations cannot change
the meaning of a standard as it currently
stands. Even if the request points out an error
in the standard, the interpretation cannot fix
that error. The interpretation can suggest that
this will be brought up for consideration in a
revision or amendment (or, depending on the
nature of the error, an errata sheet might be
issued).
However, an interpretation has no authority
to do any of this. It can only discuss, address,
and clarify what the standard currently says.
The challenge for the interpreters is to
distinguish between their expertise on what
"should be," their interests in what they 'would
like the standard to be," and what the standard
says. Interpretations are often valuable,
though, because the request will point out
problems that might otherwise have gone
unaddressed.
One of the reasons interpretations cannot
change the standard is that they are not
developed through an officially balanced
consensus process, that is, a ballot. The
interpretation request is handled by the sponsor
through an interpretations group. This group can
be the standing working group that developed the
standard or it can be any of the members of the
working group or balloting group who have
expressed an interest in participating in the
interpretations process, depending on the rules
of the sponsor.
There is a requirement for balance in
membership; it's probably best to follow the
principles of balance that were used in
balloting to establish balance in
interpretations groups. Interpretations also
have to be balloted in the Sponsor. But because
this process doesn’t meet the rules for approval
of changes that are applied to an IEEE ballot,
an interpretation cannot change the
meaning of a document.
All working groups should be aware that they
may be called upon to handle interpretations and
come up with a process for doing so while
they are still developing their standard.
Level of participation in a working group is
usually highest at this point, and it is
important for working group members to be aware
of this responsibility and prepare for their
potential involvement. Remember, some groups
receive no interpretations requests at all,
while others receive many, so the group may have
nothing to do or a great deal to do. The
interpretations process you develop should be
well known within your technical community so
that anyone who wants to can participate. The
procedure for submitting interpretations
requests is published in the front of every IEEE
standard.
Some possible answers to requests are shown
in Annex C to
give guidance on how to handle requests without
altering the meaning of the standard.
Interpretations are useful in indicating when a
revision or an errata sheet might be necessary
as well. And if the Sponsor feels it cannot
issue an interpretation for a request, this is
an area that clearly should be reconsidered when
the standard is revised.
Some Guidelines for
Interpretations
1) The standard is what it says. If the
words are substantively wrong, then a corrective
corrigenda via the balloting process is the
correct response.
2) If the standard is ambiguous, then
the interpretation must favor a looser
requirement rather than a more restrictive one.
Again, a corrective corrigenda can be initiated
if needed.
3) If two parts of the standard
contradict one another, then a rationale should
be created and the IEEE errata process should be
applied to correct the contradiction.
More information on interpretations can
be found here.
Many interpretations groups meet via
phone or electronic mail, which avoids any
travel requirements or significant time away
from work.
You've spent years developing a standard;
your work is done. Now what do you do about all
those papers you accumulated in the process?
Many working group members and officers
aren't sure what to do with these materials. You
aren't obligated to keep any of it, and it is
preferable that you do not. Once the work is
complete on a standard, the IEEE maintains the
official project file, which contains all the
pertinent correspondence. However, many
standards developers are loathe to toss out all
the paperwork related to a standard they spent
years developing. In this case, sponsor-level
standards developers may retain the documents in
the list to the right for a period of five years
after the standard is published. After this
time, they should be discarded.
Sponsors may retain the following
documents for five years after their standards
are published:
1) Log of issues (resolved and
unresolved) 2) Meeting minutes and
attachments 3) Documents from other
organizations 4) Technical input received that
resulted in revision to the
standard 5) All draft revisions, and
correspondence regarding the
draft 6) All correspondence produced by the
committee 7) A copy of the PAR 8) The response from the IEEE-SA
Standards Board to the PAR 9) The sponsor ballot summary, ballot
comments, ballot resolution, and other related
ballot correspondence 10) Interpretations (requests and
responses)
There is another major avenue of publication
in the IEEE Standards Department--The IEEE
Press: Standards Information Network (SIN). The
Standards Information Network publishes texts
related to or about standards, such as technical
reports, guides, handbooks, and compendiums.
These related texts can be very useful to the
standards reader by presenting the environment
or some of the rationale that went into the
final decisions included in those standards. All
SIN books are reviewed by a panel of peer
reviewers for their acceptability and receive a
design and presentation unique from the
standards themselves. The Standards Information
Network provides an excellent mechanism for
producing companion documents to standards,
which are often needed.
In addition, the IEEE does sell selected
draft standards. When a standard is approved,
the IEEE makes the draft available until it is
published in its final version. Also, the IEEE
will distribute selected drafts prior to their
approval if there is a demand for them and if
the working group concurs. This method of
distribution is very useful for some standards
groups.
Another step that might occur with your
document would be the possible development of a
related or identical international standard. As
you may recall, there was a box on the PAR form
that allowed you to indicate an interest in
this. If you discover that you want to develop
your standard in this manner later in the
process, you should inform your IEEE
Standards Staff Liaison and Project Editor
to receive their assistance. There are also many
IEEE members with experience in this area who
would be able to help guide you in this process.
Developing your standard internationally can
be valuable for several reasons. The world is
rapidly becoming a single global marketplace,
and standards can reflect this as well. The
IEEE, as a global organization (one without
borders), encourages this kind of participation.
The value of your standard can be increased
greatly if it reaches a broader market. The idea
of reducing conflict between standards from many
countries is also valuable.
The IEEE Standards Association has mutual
recognition agreeements with certain
organizations, such as the European
Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).
The IEEE has also joined with the International
Electrotechnical Commisssion (IEC) in a
groundbreaking agreement to create dual-logo
standards. Your IEEE Standards Staff Liaison
will be able to tell you more about these kinds
of arrangements.
Your IEEE Standards Staff Liaison can also
help you to reach the appropriate international
standards developing groups. Finally, the
IEEE Standards Style Manual has an
entire clause on internationalization and
what you should consider doing in terms of
document contents if you want to develop an
international standard.
There are also related products or seminars
that can be developed for your standard if you
feel they could be beneficial. If instructors
are available, seminars can be developed to help
companies implement your standard. These are
usually offered on-site for company savings, and
the seminars can be developed with the help of
IEEE staff to suit the needs of your document
and your community. Special marketing programs
can also be developed to promote seminars, as
well as SIN
products and standards themselves.
The IEEE also has established procedures to
allow other standards-developing organizations
to adopt
IEEE standards for their field or their country,
and the IEEE has adopted standards from other
organizations as IEEE standards. The IEEE-SA
Standards Board has procedures to fulfill this
type of adoption.
The IEEE is beginning to examine the field of
conformity assessment, that is, certifying
products that claim to be compliant with IEEE
standards. Work in this area is ongoing and if
you feel you have a standard with potential in
this area, you should contact the IEEE
Standards Department.
The IEEE Standards Association offers several
programs to assign unique names to objects that
specifically identify them to anyone who is
interested. These unique names are used by
computer systems worldwide to determine which
machine needs to be communicated with, for
example.
The IEEE runs several registration programs,
ranging from LAN/MAN communications to sensor
device interconnects. For further information,
see the Registration
Authority at the IEEE Standards website.
Standards
Development Solutions is a fee-for-services
program that's designed to expedite the phases
of the standards development process for you.
Each program determines the services it wants
and the budget it can allocate. This helps to
reduce the time it take to develop your standard
and builds a flexible program that suits your
needs.
Finally, the IEEE standards program has a
series of awards
that can be earned by standards developers. One
award, the working
group chair award, is automatically given to
the working group chair after publication of a
standard. Working groups are acknowledged in IEEE
StandardsWire™, and key contributors to
the standard's development can be credited here.
There are also awards from the IEEE Standards
Association for outstanding achievement. The
IEEE-SA Standards Board confers a Distinguished
Service award to past or present members for
exceptional service, the IEEE
Standards Medallion is given for
extraordinary contributions to a standard, and
the Charles
Proteus Steinmetz award is given once a year
by the IEEE Board of Directors. The award is
usually for a body of achievement in
standardization. Many societies sponsor specific
awards programs for standards work as well.
Two recently-created awards salute the IEEE's
global status and the value that standards serve
to industry. The IEEE-SA
International Award is given to an IEEE
standards participant who has made great efforts
to facilitate the international image of the
IEEE. And the IEEE-SA
Corporate Award is extended to those
companies who are members of the IEEE-SA and who
have made exemplary contributions to the
standards process.
