IEEESA Policies Change Process

1
IEEE-SA Policies Change Process

• Chuck Powers
• Presentation to SA CAG
• November 2006

2
IEEE-SA Policies Change Process (1)

• The IEEE-SA Corporate Program is, in part, an
  effort focused on expanding IEEE-SA standards
  development
• Goal is to make the IEEE-SA THE place to develop
  standards using an entity-only approach
• However, if the policies can only be updated by
  individuals, this can send entities elsewhere
• In order to encourage entity participation, they
  want/need to have a say in how the process works
• IPR policy is current example, but any
  significant changes to the By-Laws and/or Ops
  Manual is relevant
• Several Corporate members complained to me
  privately that the voice of the entities is not
  being heard We have no say, but are expected
  to follow whatever the resulting policy is
• Situation exacerbated by the seeming extreme
  individual positioning during the recent
  development of the proposed IPR Policy changes

3
IEEE-SA Policies Change Process (2)

• Process used for IPR Policy changes makes good
  case study
• Small group of individuals, selected from SASB
  and BoG developed changes
• Others provided input, but PatCom free to accept
  or ignore
• No direct Corporate representation allowed, by
  definition
• Proposals then go to SASB for review/approval
• Again, no Corporate representation allowed, by
  definition
• SASB itself is not representative SB member not
  elected by IEEE-SA membership (individual or
  Corporate)
• Process repeats at BoG level
• Throughout the process, there is no one involved
  who officially represents the voice of the
  Corporate members
• Not an ideal situation if the intent is to
  encourage Corporate participation

4
Possible Solutions (for Discussion)

• Add CAG representative(s) to SASB Committees
• Since Corporate members are most affected by many
  policy changes, may not provide acceptable level
  of representation
• For IPR Policy discussions, many see PatCom as a
  tool of convenience, rather than the right forum
  for such efforts
• Approach to selecting Corporate representatives
  could also be suspect
• Create Corporate policy group (CAG?)
• Draft and propose changes to policy in support of
  Corporate interests
• Approval path would still go through SASB, but
  ideally via Corporate initiative rather than
  individual initiative
• Discussions driven by Corporate interests

5
Summary

• Everyone understands that the IEEE-SA is still a
  predominantly individual-driven organization
• However, unless Corporate members get greater
  Policy say as changes are drafted, could
  negatively impact the Corporate program
• Other SDOs have demonstrated that policy changes
  can be drafted using an everyone who wants to
  has a say approach, without achieving gridlock
• Can the differences in individual vs. Corporate
  interests be resolved within the current IEEE-SA
  organization?
• If not, could be a bumpy ride ahead