[J3] (SC22WG5.6238) Fwd: Draft Directives

[Steve Lionel]

I received the following "heads up" from David Keaton, SC22 Chair, about a
change in policy for guests invited to WG meetings. I pass it along for
information only (I did not include the attachment, but let me know
directly if you want to see it.) I did remark to David that joining a WG
means joining the National Body (NB - J3 for the US) and there can be a
significant expense (as there is in the US.) David, in his reply, agreed
and noted that in some countries you have to sign over intellectual
property to the NB!

Steve

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: David Keaton <dmk at dmk.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 3:54 PM
Subject: Draft Directives


Dear SC 22 Convenors,

      Recently, JTC 1 sent out a draft of the 2020 ISO/IEC Directives
with JTC 1 Supplement, Part 1.  I've attached a copy.

      I'd like to draw your attention to subclause 1.12.2 in the
description of working groups.  There is some history associated with it.

      Some years ago, there was an incident of bullying in an
international standards committee (in a subject area that was not
related to SC 22's).  Ever since then, national bodies have been worried
that the bullying parties would show up at meetings.  They began
cracking down on which people were allowed to attend WG meetings, making
it more and more explicit that only registered members may participate
in the process.  As part of the crackdown, in 2017, ISO and IEC added a
new subclause 1.12.2 that said "Experts not registered to a working
group in the ISO [Global Directory] or the IEC [Expert Management
System] respectively, shall not participate in its work."

      It has always been understood that convenors could invite guests
to WG meetings, but in the past, that rule was never written down.  The
2017 addition appeared to contradict the unwritten rule, which was not
intended.  Therefore, last year, they added a new sentence to subclause
1.12.2 saying "Convenors may invite a specific guest to participate in a
single meeting."

      Unfortunately, the national bodies were uncomfortable with this
being put in writing.  A few weeks ago, ISO and IEC extended that
sentence to say ". . . and shall notify the guest's National Body of the
invitation."  The idea behind this is effectively to give veto power to
the national bodies.  If a convenor exercises the right to invite guests
"too often" as interpreted by any particular national body, or if a
convenor invites someone a national body doesn't like, the requirement
to notify the guest's national body provides a chance to protest the
invitation and apply pressure to stop inviting as many people or
particular people.

      Here is the full text of that subclause as it stands today.

"1.12.2 The composition of the working group is defined in the ISO
Global Directory (GD) or in the IEC Expert Management System (EMS) as
appropriate. Experts not registered to a working group in the ISO GD or
the IEC EMS respectively, shall not participate in its work. Convenors
may invite a specific guest to participate in a single meeting and shall
notify the guest’s National Body of the invitation."

      I am not happy with the increased crackdown.  Several SC 22 WGs
depend on being able to work with nonmembers.  However, the rules will
not be loosened, because they were created out of fear generated by a
past incident of bullying.  The most we can do is be aware of them and
do the best we can to get our work done while respecting the directives.

      Consequently, I would recommend that you continue to invite guests
as you have in the past, but now be aware that you will need to notify
the guests' national bodies, and those national bodies will be looking
over your shoulder.  You may wish to reduce the number of invitations of
a particular person, or the frequency of invitations overall, to avoid
attracting too much attention from national bodies.  People can always
be encouraged to join the WG formally, so that an invitation will not be
required.

      Sorry for the extra hassle.  New rules designed to prevent a
single past incident generally have negative consequences.

                                        David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20200615/759f4a1d/attachment.htm>