(j3.2006) Fwd: [procedures-rewrite] Next Steps for INCITS Policy/Procedures Rewrite

Fri Apr 11 10:04:27 EDT 2014

Hi,

FYI

If anyone has any comments about how to recruit new members,
reply privately or copy the list.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Jim Hughes (LCA)" <Jim.Hughes at microsoft.com>
> Subject: [procedures-rewrite] Next Steps for INCITS Policy/Procedures Rewrite
> Date: April 10, 2014 at 19:58:09 MDT
> To: "procedures-rewrite at standards.incits.org" <procedures-rewrite at standards.incits.org>
> 
> Thanks to everyone that participated this week in discussions of the revised INCITS Procedures. To reiterate the Next Steps I explained in the final presentation:
> ?         We will keep taking written comments on the attached draft until April 30th. Please post comments to this alias ('procedures-rewrite at standards.incits.org') so everyone can have the benefit of seeing comments. [INCITS Chairs/Vice-Chairs/IRs and the Executive Board are on this alias.]
> ?         *Please* provide a recommended solution to any issues you raise ? we?re in the latter stages of document preparation, don?t what to guess at what would satisfy your request, and might have to pass it over if you don?t have a clear ?fix? to propose.
> ?         Please use the attached ISO Comment form so we can easily integrate your comments in with others. Make sure the line number, clause, comments and proposed change columns are filled in. Please do not submit annotated copies of the draft Procedures.
> ?         The Procedures Refresh Ad Hoc will work through the comments during May, and will likely post a new draft in early June ? it will go to this alias, and you?ll get a copy.
> ?         The Executive Board will consider this new draft in its 30 June meeting, and decide then whether the quality is high enough to warrant a formal ballot to approve it, or to continue revisions. Don?t assume there will be another review period, but that decision can?t happen until we see the magnitude of changes needed in this round. Most of the comments we?ve received so far are editorial.
> ?         I?ve tried to accurately capture verbal comments made this week, but if you want to make sure your thoughts get to this review, please document them and post a comment sheet as noted above.
> Thanks for your support in helping us streamline/improve our INCITS Procedures?
>  
> Jim Hughes
> PBC Chair
>  
> From: Jim Hughes (LCA) 
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 7:58 PM
> To: 'procedures-rewrite at standards.incits.org'
> Subject: INCITS Policy/Procedures Rewrite
>  
> In September 2013, the Executive Board formed an Ad Hoc to look at the procedures documents (see http://incits.org/standards-information/reference-documents), particularly to improve the structure/quality of RD-1 and RD-2. This group held a marathon 5-day working session to review all the policies/procedures, and after many phone calls has now developed a revised Procedures document for review (attached).
>  
> I?m providing it to the TC Chairs in advance of the session in Savannah on this topic ? and using a new email list (procedures-rewrite at standards.incits.org) which includes members of the Ad Hoc for discussion/comments. If you would like to pose questions here for group consumption, we?ll try to resolve them in advance of the meeting. Otherwise, I invite you to bring your questions/concerns to Savannah and we can discuss them.
>  
> The current plan is to discuss this document more in the Procedures Board Committee teleconference on 28 March, in the Symposium on 7-8 April, and then in the EB meeting on 9-11 April, where we?ll see if this is ?good enough? to initiate a vote to approve it as a replacement for RD-1 and RD-2. In parallel, we?re asking ANSI to also review it from their perspective of auditing our procedures as an Accredited Standards Developer.
>  
> It?s been a complex task, and there is no practical way to automatically generate a ?differences document? against the current RD-1 and RD-2 ? so apologies for that. If you could spend some time to look at sections which are particularly important to you, and let us know what we?ve gotten wrong or missed, we would greatly appreciate your help. I?d only ask that you send editorial issues to Lynn and myself so that this new email list is used for the more major or critical items.
>  
> I would like to point out some improvements we?ve made, and we will discuss these at the Symposium:
> 1.       Removed Friends of Committee Document Access ? the ?Friends of Committee? access category has been confusing, so document access in 3.12 is now categorized as ?member? and ?public? ? with TCs being able to open up access to practically all documents as needed with a public access model.
> 2.       IR Best Practice ? 3.3.4.4 makes the IR a ?best practice? position, appointed by the Chair.
> 3.       Emeritus Member Participation at WG Meetings ? 3.9.3.4 on Emeritus Members allows participation in international delegations, with EB approval.
> 4.       Removed Jeopardy from not voting on Letter Ballots ? 3.9.4.2 now shows that jeopardy is caused only by a failure to attend meetings, not by failure to vote.
> 5.       Changes to Financial Funds and Bank Accounts ? 4.1 simplifies the use of ?Funds? and how they are administered.
> 6.       Simplified File Retention ? 4.2 simplifies the policy and greatly reduces the list of documents shown in the current document retention policy.
> 7.       Simplified the Annual Reporting Template and Process ? the Annual Reporting Template in 5.3.1 is now administered by the Secretariat and greatly simplified (it will be used for the 2015 Symposium).
> 8.       NP Ballots Approved by EB ? 7.7 improves the discussion of NP ballots, clarifying that the EB will always review all US positions on NP ballots.
> 9.       Delegations not required for WG/SG Meetings ? see 7.15, where we?ve separated out WG/SG experts (approved by the TAG) from the usual Delegations to other international meetings, such as SC meetings.
> 10.   Eliminated Maintenance Committee ? as this concept wasn?t really being used, we eliminated it.
> 11.   Ad Hoc Membership Changes ? as Ad Hocs are intended to be short-term, limited-scope activities, membership comes from the parent body, absent EB approval of exceptions.
> 12.   Ballot Period at 14 Days ? most of the entries in the voting tables have been shortened from 30 days to 14 days to speed up decisions.
> 13.   Removed Roll Call Voting ? recording roll call votes was done infrequently, and when done was not handled well, so this was simplified.
> 14.   Removed Milestone 5 ? INCITS didn?t need this milestone for accreditation, and removing it simplified our procedures.
> 15.   Simplified the Project Proposal Guide ? this is simplified and will be posted soon on the INCITS website
> 
> There are other changes, of course, and if you would like our Symposium session to address other aspects of this revision, please let me know in advance and I?ll add them to the agenda.
>  
> Thanks ?
>  
> Jim Hughes
> PBC Chair
>  
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: procedures-rewrite-unsubscribe at standards.incits.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: procedures-rewrite-help at standards.incits.org

--

Cheers!
Dan Nagle

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20140411/d2fbc26f/attachment-0003.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: INCITS Policies-Procedures draft 140321.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 876447 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20140411/d2fbc26f/attachment-0001.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20140411/d2fbc26f/attachment-0004.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ISO commenting template.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 37376 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20140411/d2fbc26f/attachment-0001.doc 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20140411/d2fbc26f/attachment-0005.html 