CS SAB Fall 2006 Minutes _ Repor

Document Sample
CS SAB Fall 2006 Minutes _ Repor Powered By Docstoc
					IEEE-CS SAB Fall 2007 Meeting Minutes & Reports
Cancun, CA, with IEEE-CS BoG at CasaMagna Cancun Marriott Resort
AdCom on Tuesday, 6-Nov-07 and Full SAB on Wednesday, 7-Nov-07

#      Agenda Item                                                                        Speaker

1.1    Call-to-Order & Introductions                                                    John Walz

1.2    Attendance                                                                  Debbie Brown

1.3    Approval of Agenda                                                               John Walz
The agenda was unanimously approved without modification.

1.4    Approval of Minutes of previous SAB meeting                                 Debbie Brown
The minutes from Fall2007 SAB were approved without modification or objections.

1.5    Review of Open Action Items                                                 Debbie Brown
Upon review of previously assigned action items, 13 items were closed. The updated Fall2007
list of actions is available for review and update prior to Wint2008.

2.     SAB Reports

2.1    Vice President of Standards Report                                               John Walz
For a complete report, please refer to John’s slides. John noted that the statistics presented in the
“Where is SAB” slide cannot be verified. Don pointed out that there is no longer a stigma
associated with a membership roster, so Lowell felt that we should re-solicit these numbers.
John pointed out that there is still a concern that the SAB should keep appropriate historical
records and archives. Only about 80% of the names associated with standards have actually been
saved. Lowell was able to provide a paper copy of an older list of WG chair names, and this
information has now been posted as part of the work provided by the history committee.
John also explained that the SAB is renewing a focus on vitality in a number of ways. Jack Cole,
John Harauz, David Schultz, and Joe Bumblis have all been doing work in this area. John
Harauz also added that he has been involved in establishing the CS BoG practitioner ad hoc
committee.
SA and SAB 2006 statistics indicate that we constitute over 20% of the standards projects in
work, and 1/3 of projects approved. We had a 100% of standards published less than six months
after approval, which is great news for the IEEE production process. The 5000 volunteers and
700 standards for sale are rough guess numbers because John Daniel was not able to get these
numbers. It is important to note that there are not officially any corporate members of the SA.
There are 70 corporate members of the IEEE. These are mostly poised for participation, and a
very small number of them are actually active at any one time.

Page 1 of 16                                                       SAB Minutes home page
IEEE-CS SAB Spring 2007 Meeting Minutes & Reports

John pointed out that the IEEE 1680 EPEAT project has been a great success and can serve as a
good measure of a conformance-based standard that meets the public and government need. The
PAR was approved in 2005, the standard was approved and published in 2006, and eventually
became an ANSI standard in July 2007. It is now expected to be restructured to work on a
family of standards in December 2007.
John reported that we have a whole list of potential standard project requests coming in, but there
isn’t a good mechanism for categorizing and assigning each of them to particular SC WGs. He
has been utilizing only broadcast emails. The SA has about 15 “STC”s that are utilized to
facilitate joint SC projects. There is work going on at NESCOM that makes sure that PAR
works do not overlap between SCs as well.
Kathy Land is our CS President-elect, and John Walz is hoping to get appointed CS VP for
Standards. We did not get any representatives on the CS Board of Governors.
IEEE did a survey last year across all of its membership, and over the last 4 years, there has been
close to 90% satisfaction in the standards. About 40% of respondents have used/read the
standards as well. 30% of the membership felt that standards should come at a discount with
their fees.
John is in the progress of going to each of the WG chairs and suggesting that they remind the
former WG chairs about becoming a senior member. Mike Williams suggested that all members
of the SAB should also submit an application for senior member. Lowell pointed out that your
local chapter of IEEE will also get a little extra money for each of their senior members. To
apply you simply fill out a form on the IEEE web site.
John also pointed out a number of professional opportunities for the SA volunteers, including
publication and speaking engagements. John Williams also suggested that there is a movement
to put together a tutorials/workshop on standards at the May meeting.
When reviewing the IEEE publicity for standards, Don added that the SA utilizes newsletters,
media inquiries/interviews, and backgrounders. There are a number of 802 programs that are
listed as Communications Society instead of Computer Society.
ACTION ITEM: John Walz took the action to get 802 programs currently listed as part of the
             Communications Society corrected to show their association with SA.
There is a certification program for IEEE Standards Engineers. These are offered under the SA,
and many of our own participants may be interested in pursuing this accreditation.
John outlined the CS plans to relieve financial pressure. The society’s membership is going
down, as well as the revenues. Digital publications are expanding, but this does not bring as
much income. There is a need to grow the percentage of members who are practitioners. The
Hay Group findings are still being referenced, and an ad hoc committee has been formed in the
BoG. We have reduced our travel expenses by 10%, and “at risk” members have been called to
determine why they are leaving the CS. John reported that he was given a list of 30 names, and
of the ones he was able to speak to, he was told they were too busy to read the IEEE magazines
or participate. Dave asked if it has been determined if the ACM is taking away members. John
answered that he knows there are some groups who are concerned about this issue, and they are
working to determine its affect. Since ACM does not have a standards participation outlet, John
felt that it was not much of an issue for the SA. Pam Jones pointed out that she, as a practitioner,
really appreciates the pod casts with technical information that she can download and listen to on


Page 2 of 16                                                              SAB Minutes home page
IEEE-CS SAB Spring 2007 Meeting Minutes & Reports

her MP3 player. For example, she would like to download once a year updates on what has
happened in the standards world, etc. John added that even specific, technical summaries are
helpful. Articles from the Computer magazine are also helpful.
We have a new CS executive director named Angela Burgress. Next year there will be fewer
meetings and more teleconferences/webcasts. The SAB will co-locate the March meeting with
the SA Standards Board in Piscataway, JN. 70% of our members are signed up on the CS
Community. The URL is ieee.SharedInsights.com. Lowell asked if it was actually being used.
John Harauz pointed out that the sight is a little slow, and it has been cumbersome to upload
documents. John Walz added that it has been difficult to get people to change their current
habits.
Lowell asked for status on the liberal standards license rights changes. Don and John W.
explained that this issue is still in work, and Katherine added that these items are currently
addressed on an individual basis. Susan will address these questions during her report.
Susan reported that the Standards Association is in healthy financial and membership shape.
Paul Croll reported that the Practitioners ad hoc has just been approved as a full committee and
will be having a meeting on Thursday. There are 5 SAB participants that are on the Practitioners
committee.
Katherine reported that within SISO there is concern that the standards activity is taking too
long. Her community is mostly defense, and they typically don’t send volunteers to work on the
standards. She asked if this complaint was typical to what is seen in other groups. Paul reported
that his group decided to use a different paradigm for those standards that were being rushed.
Before the WG was formed a team of key volunteers would collaborate to put together a first
draft. As a result, once the WG was formed, they have been able to get standards out within 15
months. His group also always does recirculation ballots within 10 days (unless it is extremely
large). Katherine questioned if there have been complaints about any undue influence from that
initial core team, and Paul explained that consensus is built during the balloting process and
every one participates on an equal footing during this phase. They just don’t push or solicit
membership until they are ready. Katherine added that she will explain during her report that
even the draft-building process has been quite difficult within her group. Susan added that the
WG selection process can also be contentious. Paul felt that since his group focuses on process
standards, there aren’t as many companies about particular technologies trying to influence the
work. Lowell added that in his group they have found it tremendously helpful to strictly define
and enforce the scope of work.
John reported that the DARPA involvement in standards has apparently disappeared.

2.2    SAB Vice-Chair Report                                                   Robby Robson
No report.

3.     Functional Chair Reports

3.1    Awards                                              David Schultz and John Harauz
For a complete report, please view David’s slides. David reported that the Hans Karlsson Award
has been recruited for nominations. There was a teleconference in which the recommendation



Page 3 of 16                                                            SAB Minutes home page
IEEE-CS SAB Spring 2007 Meeting Minutes & Reports

was passed on to the awards committee. It is not clear when the awards committee will be
reviewing this recommendation, as they would not be meeting at this venue. This is a CS award,
not an IEEE award. Typically the award includes a certification. John Walz confirmed that the
awards committee conducts its discussion via emails. Therefore, there is a good chance that the
vote will take place just prior to the March meeting. It could also very well be awarded at one of
the sponsor committee meetings.
David encouraged HKA committee members to recruit nominators. Last year, we only had two
nominations, but this year we got five complete nominations. The earlier due date worked well
too, and there were no complaints about the performance of the Awards website.
John Walz pointed out that the DASC won the first SA Sponsor Award for the work that they did
with entity balloting. He also pointed out that there is now a certificate of appreciation that WG
chairs can give to a few key volunteers that have made significant contributions. At the time of
publication, the staff liaison usually asks the WG chair if there are any volunteers that they
would like to have recognized. This is different from CS awards, which can only be awarded to
the WG chairs themselves.
John Harauz reminded the participants that the SAB would be having an Awards dinner
Wednesday night at 6 pm at Mercada to honor Kathy for receiving the Medallion Award.

3.2    EPEAT Sponsorship                                                         Paul Eastman
For complete discussion reference, please see the slides. Paul pointed out that Dennis has finally
gotten his standard out to ballot. The ballot group balance was finally accepted, and their target
date for ballot is Nov. 16th.
In addition to his update, Paul pointed out that the Health/Medical group mentioned at the last
SAB meeting has never contacted him. John W. asked that he talk to Malia about ways to
engage the group before they get too far in the process.
Paul reported that 60 days ago a motion was posted to create a new Environmental Assessment
Standards Committee (EASC). Wayne Rifer will be a co-chair of the group. They have
completed their P&P which is currently under review. The idea is to break up the original 1680,
which will be an umbrella standard covering the generalities, and 1680.1 will be PCs and
laptops. They are also proposing 4 new ones: printing devices, televisions, servers, and hand-
held devices. There are environmental eco-labels in other parts of the world, but none in the
U.S. Lowell questioned if this issue has not already been addressed for televisions.
John H. added that he has found that there are governmental agency constraints that are enforced
in the states. Don added that the biggest issue is when the equipment is in stand-by mode… how
much energy is being consumed in the stand-by state?
John asked if any SAB members had an objection to forming the new sponsor. Don added that
the P&P must be created from the new baseline in order to make it through AudCom. AudCom
approval of the P&P must be completed before they will be able to get any PARs approved by
NesCom. John explained that there will probably have to be some minor adjustments on the
PAR to work out with Holly. Don suggested that if we make our motion effective January 1 st,
we will already have PARs approved under the old sponsor that can then be transferred to the
new sponsor. Paul accepted the modification of his motion.



Page 4 of 16                                                             SAB Minutes home page
IEEE-CS SAB Spring 2007 Meeting Minutes & Reports

Wayne explained that EPEAT began in 2001 with an increased attention to environmental
electronics that was totally outside the IEEE. The decision in its implementation was made to
adopt the standard as an ANSI standard. Then they came to IEEE with a draft standard and
began the IEEE process. He explained that his stakeholders are extremely diverse and they had
an exceptionally successful ballot process. It is a leadership standard, intended to only be
applied to the best products. They are now venturing into a much more contentious area that will
require every manufacturer to comply and they therefore expect a lot more scrutiny. The two
key concepts are openness and balance. Balance is the most difficult thing for his group to
define. He warned the SAB that the new P&P proposes a little stronger control than is normal,
and he would like the SAB to be sensitive to his particular areas of conflicts that were being
addressed.
Don added that the IEEE process does not require balance at the WG level, only at the sponsor
ballot level. What should be avoided is dominance – there is a significant difference between the
two, and Wayne should remain aware of these issues. Wayne feels that a provision they have
added will help to discourage dominance. Rohit questioned if the CS was the right home for this
work, and John added that if you look at their project roadmap, you see that they are limiting
scope to computing type resources. Also, since work can also take place with an IEEE
coordinating committee, there could potentially be a joint societal work with another one, such as
the consumer electronics group.
Wayne explained that most of their WG members are not technical people. His standards
process is based on the consensus of stakeholders that are present. John H. added that he has
been working in the professional practices committee, and he referred to his policy draft to be
discussed later in the meeting. John H. is willing to change his direction or generalize it, if
Katherine or Wayne thinks it will be useful.
Katherine suggested that it might be a good time to define dominance and review its symptoms
to increase our familiarity. John H. added that he does have a lot of examples.
MOTION:           To create a new Environmental Assessment Standards Committee (EASC)
                  to be formed from the existing SAB Special Projects, P1680 EPEAT group,
                  effective 1 January 2008.
                  The motion was Seconded by John W.
                  The motion had already been discussed.
                  There were no objections, so the motion passed.

3.3    Policies and Procedures                                                  Robby Robson
No report.

3.4    Volunteer Services                                                          John Daniel
No report.

3.5    Vitality Report                                                                Jack Cole
John W. presented the Vitality Report in Jack’s absence.




Page 5 of 16                                                             SAB Minutes home page
IEEE-CS SAB Spring 2007 Meeting Minutes & Reports

Jim suggested that the SAB report delinquency of sponsor reports to the SA and let the SA
perform the appropriate actions.

4.     Liaison Reports

4.1    IEEE-SA Standards Board                                                      Don Wright
For a complete report, please review Don’s slides. The AUDCOM website has the status of all
P&Ps. There are few drafts that are still visibly under development.
RevCom statistics indicate a level number of projects revised, submitted, and reaffirmed
compared to the last 8 year average. John W. noticed that these numbers are slightly different
from those that are posted on the IEEE SA web site. Don pointed out that his numbers reflect the
works that are approved, and perhaps the publication numbers on the SA site are slightly behind.
On the NesCom side, there has been a significant reduction in the number of projects.
Don reported that RevCom is concerned about issues regarding myBallot and how it handles
commenting and comment resolution. They are also looking at an “early consideration period”
to make a decision about whether a standard needs to be reaffirmed or revised. This type of
evaluation may be needed when during a reaffirmation ballot, 99% vote yes, but one person
makes a comment that makes the remainder of the group want to change the vote to no; however,
since the ballot passed, they cannot make the change due to the restrictions on the
“reaffirmation” process. Once you start the reaffirmation process, it is too late for this type of
evaluation because there are large numbers of people who sign up for the ballot group just to get
a free copy of the standard.
In 802.20, a new hybrid approach to voting is being implemented to prevent dominance.
Chairs of entity-based WGs no longer have to be individual members of the SA, although the
entity they represent must still be an SA member. A P&P change will mandate IEEE
concentration banking as the only banking method for standards developers with bank accounts.
There are very few entities within standards that are not already in concentration banking.
An ad hoc committee was formed in AudCom to modify the baseline P&P document to include
the SCC Type 2 model P&P. By doing this, a single common sponsor and SCC P&P document
will simplify the process. AudCom is considering developing a baseline set of P&Ps for the
WGs. At the sponsor level, there was a model P&P, but there has not been a baseline at the WG
level. AudCom’s mission does not include auditing WG P&Ps, so it is not clear how this would
be policed or enforced.
In PatCom, the Letter Of Assurance (LOA) form has been changed such that it is clear that
restrictions cannot exceed those identified at the time of signing of the LOA.
To be a stabilized standard, it must be reaffirmed at least twice. Don provided a list of CS
standards that are expected to be withdrawn at the next RevCom meeting. This information is
submitted to the WG chairs in time for them to take care of any possible administrative needs
prior to the automatic withdrawal.
The LTSC needs to respond within the next 2-3 weeks to keep the LOM from being
administratively withdrawn. If there is going to be a reaffirmation, then they should have asked




Page 6 of 16                                                             SAB Minutes home page
IEEE-CS SAB Spring 2007 Meeting Minutes & Reports

for an extension. This one, along with several others have a couple of weeks to notify RevCom
before the next meeting.
The BoG is working to determine the answer to a strategic question for the SA…”What should
the SA strategy be in implementing business opportunities around the full lifecycle of
standards?” There will be a survey including a number of questions listed on his slides.
Although unrelated to the SA liaison report, Don reported on a situation of potential interest to
the SAB regarding DIS29500 (Open Office XML). Microsoft created a document that described
their Office 7 formats in XML. They took this proposal to ECMA, and it was then turned into an
ECMA standard with the collaboration of many, many, companies and many, many resulting
changes. It was put on a fast track through JTC1. There were highly opinionated people on both
camps, because last year another document called ODF (used by Open Office) had just been
approved as a JTC1 standard. The ballot for the MS standard failed and there is a ballot
resolution meeting scheduled for late February. There were thousands of comments submitted;
however, many of the country’s comments were the same across the board. There are possibly
300 unique comments, and the ECMA editor is creating proposed dispositions for these
comments.

4.2    IEEE-SA SCC20                                                          John Sheppard
No meeting since last SAB meeting.

4.3A JTC1 SC7 Software & System Engineering                                 Francois Coallier
For a complete review, please see linked report. Francois pointed out that JTC1 has had two
plenary meetings since his last presentation to the SAB. Three WS-I (web service
interoperability) profiles have been submitted through the PAS process and have been accepted
by JTC1 after fast track. The WSSG has been extended by JTC1 for another year for
maintenance, and an online registry of published standards and ongoing projects has been
developed. Francois explained that the WS-I is a consortium of IT vendors.
There have been two Tech Watch Workshops since the last meeting. The one in South Africa
focused on emerging economies issues while the Australian one covered areas such as IT issues
in health care and mobile IT.
There are no IEEE standards being considered for the IT activity.
Three resolutions were adopted by JTC1 as a follow-up to the Tech Watch Workshops, and a
JTC1 liaison officer to ISO TC215 has been appointed to address health care issues. These
workshop presentations are available at http://jtc1w.logti.estmtl.ca. (The last meeting’s
documents are not password protected and are available for public review.)
Now the Special Working Group on Technology Watch has been disbanded by JTC1, and a new
special working group is being considered.
The JTC1 has established three new study groups: web services, ICT governance, and sensor
networks. There has been a removal of term limits for SC chairs, and an Ad Hoc on Direct
Participation has been created. The JTC1 also established a maintenance team for IT vocabulary,
and the OSI standards have been declared “stabilized”.
The next JTC1 plenary is Nov 10-15 in Nara, Japan.



Page 7 of 16                                                            SAB Minutes home page
IEEE-CS SAB Spring 2007 Meeting Minutes & Reports

4.3B JTC1 SC7 Software & System Engineering                  Jim Moore and Steve Seidman
For a complete review, please see Jim’s linked report. Jim pointed out that he serves as the CS
liaison to JTC1 / SC7. One of our weaknesses is the inconsistencies between our standards and
those created in SC7. Sometimes SC7 adopts an IEEE standard, and sometimes IEEE adopts an
SC7 one. IEEE SA encourages cooperation with international standards activities. Back in
1995, there were a majority of incompatible standards. Since then there have been a number of
successes in making these more consistent.
The 24765 project is a shared vocabulary for software and systems engineering.
(http://www.computer.org/sevocab)
There is a new cooperative project in Testing in which BSI and IEEE will each contribute their
two standards on testing. A new four part standard will be created at the international level that
is compatible with IEEE/international systems and software processes, documentation standards,
and the SWEBOK guide, and the new standard covers a larger scope than the current standards.
IEEE CS has provided Ursula Parker as the editor. The NP ballot for this project was approved
in May 2007.
Jim provided a diagram that outlines the coordinated development process and highlights the
difficult portions that require simultaneous document processing. He pointed out that the
automation implemented by the two organizations have made each of their processes less
flexible, thus restricting his ability to coordinate between the two a great deal. They have been
doing this for about 5 years now, and it is becoming clear that some of the SC7 participants
under-appreciate the IEEE contributions. The same is true in S2ESC of the ISO contributions.
Some folks in SC7 feel that the IEEE should be lumped into the US NB., and on the other hand,
some IEEE folks feel that it is equal to ISO. There is also a perception that the IEEE is
“slowing” the process through its individual voting policy.
Katherine added that she recently encountered the ISO perception in SISO, and she asked if this
was common in the other groups. Francois added that perceptions are driven by what you see.
He explained that in many cases, the IEEE participants are US and don’t appear very
international.
There is a pending agreement on the joint publication format which may reduce the problems
with the “endgame” and the representation of participation.       Jim suggests that the IEEE
technical materials would be contributed as base documents, and let SC7 prepare drafts in the
normal fashion. The IEEE would do a poll during the first CD ballot and the comments would
be sent to SC7. SC7 would continue its process in the normal manner. IEEE conducts an
adoption project after the ISO/IEC version is published, and any comments resulting from
adoption are sent to the SC7 for consideration in the next revision. Lowell asked who would
have IPR. Jim felt that IPR is the subject of a business agreement between the ISO and IEEE.
Francois commented there have been several examples where one organization is responsible for
development and the other is responsible for maintenance. Jim explained that the IEEE has
sometimes adopted the ISO fast track document. It is the middle case when we are intermixing
contributions that causes the problem. Paul Croll pointed out the disadvantage that the IEEE is
pushed out of the development process, unless our members can find a way to participate
through their NBs. Francois commented that if we look at the fast track, the normal process is a
ballot without a lot of change and results in an SC7 document. In the other extreme, we have
more IEEE contribution. He thinks that there should be a way for IEEE to submit comments to


Page 8 of 16                                                             SAB Minutes home page
IEEE-CS SAB Spring 2007 Meeting Minutes & Reports

the SC7 process. There have been cases when ISO comes back with comments to IEEE during a
fast track, and that is still working well. The difficulties that have been experienced are pure
process issues, but the names appearing at the end in the publication process still causes
complaints for those documents that were actually developed jointly.
Jim explained that this proposal has not been thoroughly vetted yet, but it does capture some of
the comments that he has received from both organizations. The issue is the “instance” when
both organizations are developing jointly, not when one organization develops and the other
adopts in a fast track. A coordinated development process needs to be established between the
two organizations. Also, both parties feel they have some legitimate IP, and this is an issue that
needs to be addressed.
ISO/IEC JTC1 SC7 WG20 status was reported by Steve Seidman. The draft has undergone
ballot, and is it passed. In Montreal last week, there were additional comment resolution
activities, and a draft international standard was produced and submitted for ballot.
There are a number of proposed new WG20 activities. Now that 24733 is coming to completion,
the group needs to create a user’s guide and document their general body of knowledge for
systems engineering.
Teri Duran submitted a report on various SC7 working groups. Teri represented the CS when
attending these meetings. Please see the report to view the details.

4.4    IEEE Committee on Communications and Info Policy                               Jack Cole
No report.

4.5    IEEE-CS PUB                                                                    Jack Cole
No report.

4.6    Joint CS SAB/TAB Activities                                                    Jack Cole
No report.

4.7    Joint CS SAB/C&T Activities                                                  Kathy Land
Kathy reported that the C&T board and TAB are being merged into one board. They have
rewritten the bylaws and have reached an impasse with regard to P&P. Kathy and Stephanie
have recommended that an independent sub committee look at this issue and address the
structure of the new board. The CS ExCom is currently reviewing the request, and the first
meeting of the new board will likely be next June in Las Vegas. There are some appointed
members and several conferences. Historically there has been a “disconnect” between
conference committees and technical committees regarding who really owned the conferences,
so hopefully this reorganization will address the issue.
The next targets are the membership and chapters boards, which will also probably be merged.
They have also evaluated some committees which may be moved under boards. If you have any
questions or concerns about SAB, Kathy recommends that we keep getting sponsors and
continue to grow. She still considers Standards to be her home, and she always uses SAB as an
example of an effective board.



Page 9 of 16                                                             SAB Minutes home page
IEEE-CS SAB Spring 2007 Meeting Minutes & Reports

Roger Fujii reported that his action was to determine various ways the CS could generate
revenue. They hope to assist the practitioners with standards expertise through the CS. They
have discussed conferences and seminars that are not very heavily refereed. Since there is a BoG
meeting scheduled for May 2008, he is planning to test out this idea. He has been contacting
people, and Jim will be running one of the tracks. They are setting up four tracks, and they
would charge a certain amount per attendee. The track coordinator will try to attract luminaries
in each topic. Another track will be on security, and he would like to involve the casino people.
Jim pointed out that the WLO (World Lottery Organization) has requested liaison status, and
they may be interested in participating. Another track they hope to organize papers from is the
Chinese/US. An idea for the fourth one is homeland security, but these issues are still being
worked out. We can probably utilize some conference rooms for free since we will have a large
contingent, but we will also need to arrange the refreshments and honorariums. Jim suggested
that Roger send out a summary email to the track coordinators. John W. suggested that he couch
this only as an investment, break-even venture. Jim also felt he should work out issues such as
whether it is ok to pay an honorarium to someone who is already a volunteer.

4.8A Joint CS SAB/CAB Activities                                                 David Schultz
David has produced a flyer for review. Dave explained that the intent is to encourage
involvement and outreach at conferences. His idea was to extend a notice of ballot group
formation at conferences, which will encourage them to participate and in extension, become
members of SA. The flyer provides the web address to join the ballot group and for obtaining a
free IEEE web account. Don pointed out that there is a down side to bringing people in at this
point in a standards development process – the persons will not be aware of all of the issues that
were considered during the development of the standard.
John pointed out that it has been very difficult to crack the barrier of reviewed papers at the
conferences, so we haven’t been too successful in spreading awareness. He recommends that we
send conference chairs the flyers and try to track the effectiveness.

4.8B Standards Speakers Bureau                                                   David Schultz
Please review David’s slides on the standards speakers. We have successfully had speakers
engaged at a conference. In Vancouver there was a nice showing for speakers set up to speak at
the Vancouver IEEE chapter. Dave recommended that this event take place again, but he would
require several months of lead time. Dave reported that since the speakers’ bureau clearinghouse
was established, we’ve had no requests for standards speakers from any of the CS chapters.
They are currently considering merging the SSB program into the existing CS Distinguished
Visitors Program. It is expected that chapters should request speakers for their programs, but he
may also consider utilizing contacts with conference organizers to publicize speaker resources.
John pointed out that as a speaker, he is unable to access contact information for the IEEE
Section meetings, which would be beneficial to “pushing” the speaking opportunities. Dave
added that he hopes in the next 4-6 months the information should be up to date and available via
zip code searches.

4.8C Joint CS SAB/EAB Activities                                                 David Schultz
EAB is currently chaired by Steve Seidman. He is still looking for a mission on joint activities.
The EAB is mostly involved with universities, creating curriculums, and trying to work with


Page 10 of 16                                                            SAB Minutes home page
IEEE-CS SAB Spring 2007 Meeting Minutes & Reports

student chapters. Graduates of the Last Decade (GOLD) students are another group within the
EAB focus.
Dave suggested that participants visit the Educational Activities board web page from the CS
web site. He explained that they develop curricula for software engineering and other related
areas. They are also working on an accreditation program, continuing education, and distance
learning. Their main focus has been towards the college community and graduate work. There
is an interest in developing a master’s curriculum. Kathy added that an ad hoc committee has
been established in the gaming community, to be headed by Ann Demroe (at SMU). They hope
that the CS can lead this effort. They need to be good engineers that are very familiar with
software engineering, emerging technologies, and simulation/gaming techniques.
Dave added that there is also an interest in pursuing professional development as well. The SAB
agreed that it would like to send a message to the EAB that professional development is
important.

4.9    IEEE-CS Professional Practices Committee                                   John Harauz
For a complete report, please refer to John’s slides.

4.A    Value of Standards / Benefits                                              John Harauz
For a complete report, please refer to John’s slides.

4.B    Joint CS SAB/EPSB Activities                                            Robby Robson
No Report.

4.C    Standards Podcasts                                 Kathy Land and Scott Roy Smith
Kathy reported that there is a new button on the http://www.computer.org website entitled
“Podcasts”. They are working on getting book series published using the podcasts. This outlet is
a peer reviewed process that works as a companion to the DVP/SSP series. The three authors
pitched the idea to the CS as a book proposal, and within 6 weeks they completed recording 3
books and developed an interview format. The peer review addressed the interview questions
first, and then they peer reviewed the answers. This work was conducted and recorded using
email and phone. They scheduled practice sessions prior to the recording sessions. Kathy added
that their technique also improved, as her recording sounds much more “lecturish”, but Doug’s
sounds much more professional and relaxed. You can market the podcasts based on the
questions. They can aftermarket the bundle of archived podcast scripts when its podcast
availability has completed. SAB needs to decide who will lead this effort. Kathy recommends
that we begin with five or so. She suggested that the SAB come up with a canned set of
questions and use them to interview each of the WG chairs. New 20 minute podcasts are
released every two weeks. The next step is to conduct webinars. The podcasts are free at this
point. Revenue is generated by bundling ad sales with the downloads. Any revenue from this
effort was not projected into the 2008 budget, so if we generate anything this year, it will be a
bonus. Kathy recommends we have two threads: “What are standards doing today?” and then
the Standards Speakers Series. Paul also felt that we could bring in users of standards, such as
the U.S. Navy. Kathy suggests that we have someone step forward and volunteer to lead up the
initial SAB experience with podcast development.



Page 11 of 16                                                           SAB Minutes home page
IEEE-CS SAB Spring 2007 Meeting Minutes & Reports

4.D    History Committee                                                             John Walz
John reported that a table of past Working Group chairs has now been posted on the web site.
The goal was to recognize our past volunteers. The list is now 80% complete, and he will be
sending emails to the WG chairs to get confirmation, corrections, and additions. The list will be
organized by alphabet and WG prior to publishing.

4.E    Practitioners ad hoc Committee                             Paul Croll and John Harauz
Paul reported that within the PPC there has been an agenda item for several meetings to look at
setting up a premier software engineering practitioners conference. The ad hoc has also been
talking about a conference of some time. He views the role of the now permanent committee to
focus on the full scope of TAB. We need to be careful about how we define practitioners from
this respect. John asked if the seminars in Las Vegas are part of the PPC. Paul felt that we may
have 4 or 5 practitioner outreach programs that could be competing and at minimum are not very
coordinated.

5.     Sponsor Committee Reports

5.1    Design Automation Standards (DASC)                                         Victor Berman
No report.

5.2    Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA)                              Jim Odell
For a complete report, please view Jim’s slides that were sent in his absence.

5.3    Information Assurance Standards (IASC)                                         Jack Cole
No report.

5.4    Learning Technology Standards (LTSC)                                      Robby Robson
For a complete report, please refer to Robby’s update.

5.5    Local Area Networks/MAN Standards (802)                                     Paul Nikolich
No slides were prepared

5.6    Microprocessors & Microcomputers Standards (MMSC)                             Bob Davis
No report.

5.7    Portable Applications Standards (PASC)                                    Lowell Johnson
Lowell reported that his group is in the process of updating its P&P again. He described issues
that he has had with the new requirements being redundant across all P&Ps and suggested that
there be a superior document to which his P&P can reference. Don explained that the
redundancy makes it easier for the reader to understand and follow the information.
John W. asked Lowell about the PASC relationship with Open Group. He explained that a
number of years ago, the rights to the IPR where bought by Open Group, which used to be
XOpen. There was also the ISO (9945) group in which the work was being done in parallel.


Page 12 of 16                                                             SAB Minutes home page
IEEE-CS SAB Spring 2007 Meeting Minutes & Reports

They got letters signed off by IEEE so that both groups could work in parallel. The voting
system for approval of the standard is done by only 3 people: the president of IEEE CS, one
representative from the Open Group, and one representative from ISO JTC1 SC22 Posix
Advisory Group. It starts in Open Group and is submitted simultaneously to all three groups for
approval. It has worked very well. The one complication is that at the IEEE ballot level we got
enough ballots to approve, but we didn’t at one of the other levels. They didn’t like the fact that
certain groups like to do more recirculation than others in order to get it to pass. The extra
recirculation would lengthen the process. We have been forced into that situation in this case,
but to date no one has objected. ISO no longer publishes the works either. The reason this was
created was that the vendors of the products were upset that the IEEE was constantly approving a
new piece of it. This group is reducing the number of updates to about every 3 years. They are
currently on issue 6, and the first two standards were in 1995. The US TAG doesn’t have an
apparent role in the process. Lowell feels it is a fairly good model for internationalization. The
three voting entities are IEEE (where participants can vote as an individual), X Open (where
votes are cast by corporations), and ISO (where votes are cast by nation).
There will be a new PAR for a C++ Thin Binding. The experts will be coming from the C++
group, and the chair will be listed as a chair of convenience until they find one that is a willing
volunteer and IEEE member.

5.8    Simulation Interoperability Standards (SISO-SAC)                        Katherine Morse
For a complete report, please refer to Katherine’s slides and her TTSC report. A SISO PDG
(WG) has been established to revise the IEEE 1516.3 (HLA) Federation Development and
Execution Process. They want to expand the scope beyond HLA and will also change its name
and number 1730 (Distributed Simulation Engineering and Execution Process (DSEEP). It was
approved by NesCom and the first draft has already completed its first round of balloting.
1278.1 and 1278.1a are in revision and draft 14 will hopefully be submitted to PDG (WG) for
approval to take to IEEE ballot.
The 1516 family of standards (HLA) received some good and significant comments that had
larger ramifications than originally expected. They are now hopefully within a few weeks of
wrapping these changes up and balloting in early 2008. The ballot group was reopened to allow
new stakeholders to join since it had been so long since the original invitation, and it was closed
on October 31.
Within the DIS PDG (WG) there was a request for an investigation of potential dominance by a
government program. The investigation resulted with a complete report. It was concluded that
there was no evidence that this group (the US Air Force Distributed Mission Organization)
attempted to exert coercion or domination. There was one instance of block voting, but it did not
result in a successful attempt to affect the resulting draft standard. They did find that the DIS
PDG violated the spirit of the SISO restrictions on the chairs participation in procedural or
contentious discussions. The WG chair was changed, and since this change the work has
progressed without any disruptions. The person who originally requested the SAC investigation
asked if he could appeal the results of the investigation to the IEEE, although she has not heard
anything else from him about it. She did want to note that they were extremely cautious and fair-
minded during the investigation and she hoped that the doubling of effort would not be




Page 13 of 16                                                             SAB Minutes home page
IEEE-CS SAB Spring 2007 Meeting Minutes & Reports

necessary. Katherine pointed out that much of the excellent work was completed by Mark
McCall.
The new SAC Vice Chair, Jane Bachman, will be replacing Katherine at the next meeting.
Katherine will be assuming the Chairmanship of SAC at that time.

5.9    Software & Systems Engineering Standards (S2ESC)                                Paul Croll
For a complete report, please refer to Paul’s slides. Paul reported that S2ESC has a number of
outreach activities, including conferences, book series, and collaboration with professional
societies. They are establishing one-on-one relationships with industry executives as well.

5.A    Storage Systems Standards (SSSC)                                        Curtis Anderson
Please refer to Curtis’s report. He explained that SSSC continues to do what it has done for 12
years. There were 5 standards approved in 2000 which were targeted for use by the back up
venders. These venders were not particularly interested in the technology, but after having been
withdrawn it turns out that systems venders are interested. Sun and EMC are now implementing
the technology, so he is now requesting that these standards be revived for revision. It is
expected that they will be completed in 2008.

5.B    Test Technology Standards (TTSC)                                             Rohit Kapur
For a complete report, please see Rohit’s slides. Rohit added that he is working with CEDA to
figure out what they can do in the standards space. A large bulk of standards activities in EDA
happen in the CS. Victor Berman and he are the two persons who generally participate with the
CEDA meetings.
Paul reported that his committee had also worked with Councils to address systems engineering
standards. Councils are organizations that foster collaboration across societies. He has
successfully argued that council level standardization is more about harmonization across the
society’s interests. Also at the council level there may be umbrella standards that are at a higher
level of abstraction than specific standards committee works.
Rohit explained that the EDA council is on a fast track to becoming a society itself. They are
aggressively trying to take over conferences, etc. As far as Test is concerned, Test is basically
not just EDA, it also has to do with testers, probe cards, and other things. We need to maintain a
relationship with CEDA, but we are an independent entity. For DA standards there is no
argument as such. Standards have got to do with IEEE, so whether it happened in CS or IEEE, it
doesn’t matter. He will argue that standards already taking place in CS would benefit from
staying there, but new standards could potentially be moved to the new society. He wants the
SAB to be aware of this very strong activity’s emergence into the IEEE. It is a very unusual
situation, because there is no need to harmonize with other societies. John W. pointed out that
we could establish a policy that we welcome harmonization with other societies, whether it is a
new IEEE society or CEDA. Paul pointed out that they actually have specific bylaws that
prohibit the systems council from becoming a society. Rohit explained that all he can do is act
as a consultant to the process. He feels that Victor should add his perspective to this discussion,
and John added that we will try to get him on the agenda for the next meeting.

5.C    SAB Sponsored Projects                                                     Paul Eastman


Page 14 of 16                                                             SAB Minutes home page
IEEE-CS SAB Spring 2007 Meeting Minutes & Reports

For a complete report, please refer to Paul’s report.
The EPEAT materials were reviewed earlier in the meeting. There are two potential standards
that have yet to approach him for assistance.

6.     SAB Initiatives

6.1    SAB / TAB Mapping                                                            Harauz, Cole
John has completed the SAB/TAB mapping document,

7.     Old Business
None

8.     New Business

8.1    IEEE-SA                                               Malia Zaman and Susan Tatiner
For a complete report, please view Malia’s and Susan’s slides.
Susan explained that sometime in 2006 she received a lot of concern about the length of time it
took for publishing services. A number of improvements have been done, and they will again
evaluate their progress in mid 2008. They rigorously evaluated what the editors are doing and
are adding a Project Editor position in 2008. Different editors have been assigned to be the
expert in different areas, and these persons are responsible for helping to train the new editors on
their subject expertise. They will also be receiving customized time management training from
Rudgers.
Jim asked about round-tripping editable documents. Susan added that they are now preparing
the smaller documents in Word, but they still have to use FrameMaker for the larger documents.
They have freelancers that can help with proof reading after converting the files to an editable
format.

8.2    Xplore Release 2.2 and CS Standards                                             John Walz
Aaron joined in via conference call.

9.     Closing - Meeting Schedule

9.1    2008 Meetings Schedule                                                          John Walz
It looks like in 2008, the following schedule has been arranged:
28-Mar-08 at Piscataway, NJ,with IEEE SA
14-May-08 at Las Vegas, NV with IEEE-CS BoG
19-Nov-08 Webcast


9.2    For the Good of the Society                                                     John Walz
David suggested that we look into getting satellite mikes for the conference phones, and Lowell
pointed out that we do have the equipment but it got held up by Mexican customs.


Page 15 of 16                                                             SAB Minutes home page
IEEE-CS SAB Spring 2007 Meeting Minutes & Reports

John Walz thanked Katherine again for all of her years of service. He also thanked Susan and
Malia for addressing our concerns.

9.3    Review of Assigned Action Items                                      Debbie Brown

9.4    Adjournment                                                              John Walz
Meeting ended at 4:29 pm




Page 16 of 16                                                       SAB Minutes home page

				
DOCUMENT INFO