Inappropriate "speech" in emails sent to IEEE Working Groups

From: Michael McNamara (mac@verisity.com)
Date: Wed Mar 24 2004 - 16:15:28 PST

  • Next message: Michael McNamara: "Minutes of the March 22nd, 2004 IEEE 1364 WG meeting"

    First, to the list: I appreciate your patience, and suggest that this
    discussion move to a different place, such as stds-dasc-sc@eda.org so
    that others can get their work done. I have included a Reply-To line
    so as to so direct follow-ups.

    ----------------

    To your question:

    No, I have not found a site which specifically limits what may
    discussed via email on an IEEE reflector. Nor have I found a place
    that limits what can be communicated via WebEx in such a forum, or via
    cell phone to such a meeting, or uttered in Spanish in a meeting, or
    via SMS from one participant in an IEEE meeting to another.

    However, I choose (correctly or incorrectly) to connect the dots
    between the restrictions on what may be discussed in an IEEE Standards
    meeting (cited previously), and the use of email or WebEx or of means
    of communication other than spoken English in an offical IEEE Working
    Group.

    With respect to email, I believe I am specifically supported by the
    last sentence of Section 4.1 of the Model Procedures for a Working
    Group,
    <http://www.dasc.org/procedures/DASC-WG-model-procedures-adopted.pdf>,
    which reads:

      Voting Membership in the Working Group shall be in accordance with
      the procedures of the IEEE-CS SAB and the IEEE-SA Standards Board. A
      Working Group member shall be a DASC member in order to be a voting
      member of the Working Group. A voting member shall participate in
      Working Group activities as specified in Clause 4.7.1 of the IEEE-CS
      SAB policies. For the purpose of interpreting that clause, a meeting
      shall be deemed to include a teleconference or a Working Group
      ballot conducted by letter or electronically. A member shall be
      counted as participating in a meeting on the basis of email
      communication with the Working Group addressing an item on the
      published agenda or minutes of the meeting.

    I infer (and my decision may be overruled by appealing to the DASC
    Steering committee, and from thence to higher authorites as desired)
    that because email communication that is sent to the entire working
    group is deemed to be speech that has taken place within the meeting
    for the purposes of maintaining voting membership, that such speech
    must also follow the rules of conduct of other speech that may take
    place during such a meeting, such as the proviso against trade
    limiting, market setting, and other speech.

    To me it is evident that there is actually a larger risk of
    inappropriate email speech versus inappropriate uttered speech: email
    speech is "louder", and it "echos forever".

    A inappropriate comment made in the corner of an IEEE meeting room
    into one's napkin possibly will be heard only by a few, and the damage
    can be addressed on the spot. [Note: this by no means indicates that
    I condone such speech].

    An inappropriate comment made via email to a Working Group reflector
    is heard perfectly by everyone on the reflector; and if it is sent to
    btf@boyd.com, it will be forwarded around the world quite
    efficiently.

    Such emails will be archived to many databases including google.com,
    and essentially remain forever out there as a statement of the view of
    a working group member.

    I do agree with you that it would be a good thing for the IEEE-SA web
    pages to be updated with specific guidence on email sent to reflectors
    that are associated with IEEE Working Groups. Likely they should be
    extended to cover other means of communication as well.

    Until then (and/or until overruled by the DASC-SC or other higher
    group), as working group chair of 1364, I choose to interpret the
    regulations on what may be said during a Working Group meeting as also
    applying to email sent to the Working Group's offical email lists,
    which for 1364 include 1364@accellera.org, etf@boyd.com, ptf@boyd.com
    and btf@boyd.com

    As for Cliff's first comment, it is my determination (again subject to
    review) that the speaking of such a reason for holding a view on an
    possible extention to a language is out of place in an IEEE working
    group as it is based 100% on business considerations.

    Again, Cliff is welcome to such an opinion, and outside of an IEEE
    Working Group meeting he is welcome to express that view using all the
    means available to him (except sending this view to btf@boyd.com).

    -mac

    -- On Mar 24 2004 at 12:05, William Paulsen sent a message: > To:
    mac@verisity.com, cliffc@sunburst-design.com, btf@boyd.com,
    vfv@eda.org > Subject: "RE: More problems with your Apology..." >
    Mac,
    >
    > I don't intend to be difficult - I think it's important to understand
    > what are the prohibited topics.
    >
    > But I don't see anything in the "IEEE What You Need to Know" brochure,
    > which you provided a link to, that contradicts my point - that email
    > discussions are not restricted.
    >
    > Can you please site exactly where email discussions must have the same
    > restrictions as official IEEE standards meeting discussions?
    >
    > But it seems that a strict interpretation of paragraph 5 in the brochure
    > would prohibit any email discussions:
    >
    > "When an IEEE standards-development meeting
    > is adjourned, it should be over in all respects.
    > Carryover discussions incidental to the meeting
    > session present too great a temptation for
    > "confidential" discussions of prohibited subjects."
    >
    >
    > Also, you provided a "workaround" for Cliff's second comment, but not
    > for his first comment:
    >
    > "At this point, not all tools intend to support XXX. Notably, YYY
    > has so-far announced that they will not be supporting XXX."
    >
    > I was browsing at www.ieee802.org , the Ethernet standards site, and I
    > they mention that discussion of cost during standards development is OK.
    > (Discussions of pricing is not OK). So a rewrite/workaround might be:
    >
    > "My opinion is that the costs to implement XXX are very great, and I
    > think that a tool that is compliant with the standard should be allowed
    > to optionally support XXX."
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Michael McNamara [mailto:mac@verisity.com]
    > > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:32 PM
    > > To: William Paulsen
    > > Cc: Clifford E. Cummings; btf@boyd.com; vfv@eda.org
    > > Subject: RE: More problems with your Apology...
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > -- On Mar 24 2004 at 07:24, William Paulsen sent a message:
    > > > To: cliffc@sunburst-design.com, btf@boyd.com, vfv@eda.org
    > > > Subject: "RE: More problems with your Apology..."
    > > >
    > > > I suspect that these guidelines that restrict standards
    > > discussions > apply only during official IEEE standards meetings. >
    > > > I think it would be difficult to restrict casual email
    > > discussions, such > as here. >
    > > > Indeed, if email discussions must follow the restriction
    > > guidelines, > then I would think that other informal
    > > discussions that occur outside > IEEE meetings must also be
    > > restricted - such as informal discussions in > hallways, for
    > > example, or even private emails. >
    > > > But how can these informal discussions be enforced?
    > >
    > > Please refer to
    > > <http://standards.ieee.org/resources/StdsLaw_Brochure.pdf>
    > > in the section entitled "Standards and Records, paragraphs 4, 5 & 6.
    > >
    > > Also note that emails sent to an email reflector of a
    > > Standards Group are considered to be part of the activities
    > > of the group, and indeed according to the Model Operating
    > > Procedures of DASC sponsored IEEE groups may even grant
    > > privileges akin to those gained by physical or telephonic attendance.
    > >
    > > -mac
    > >
    > > >
    > > > Bill Paulsen
    > > >
    > > > > -----Original Message-----
    > > > > From: Clifford E. Cummings [mailto:cliffc@sunburst-design.com]
    > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:39 PM
    > > > > To: btf@boyd.com; vfv@eda.org
    > > > > Subject: Re: More problems with your Apology...
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Hi, All -
    > > > >
    > > > > Please forgive me but I can't find the "second round of
    > > distribution"
    > > > > mentioned by Alec and referenced by Mac. I know my original
    > > > > email to the
    > > > > btf and vfv reflectors had bad content but I cannot find
    > > the second
    > > > > offending email (unless it is my response to Mac's email
    > > > > where I replied
    > > > > and kept his comments about my original bad references??) > >
    > > > > Please let me know what the "second round of distribution" is
    > > > > referring to.
    > > > > I promise I will appropriately apologize for that
    > > content too. > >
    > > > > I guess I need a generic EDA company to write me a generic
    > > > > linting tool to
    > > > > lint my emails for generic offensive content before I forward
    > > > > comments to
    > > > > the generic standards reflectors (this is getting way too
    > > > > complicated!)
    > > > >
    > > > > Regards - Cliff
    > > > >
    > > > > At 03:28 PM 3/23/2004, Michael McNamara wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > >And, as I pointed out in the meeting, these guidelines are
    > > > > not based on
    > > > > >whether one works for, or does not work for any
    > > company. > > > > > >Also these guidelines really have
    > > nothing to do with the
    > > > > bylaws of the
    > > > > >IEEE-SA; instead they have to do with the laws of the
    > > United States. > > > > > >The IEEE-SA formed these
    > > guidelines (you could think of them
    > > > > as Design
    > > > > >Rules) for us so as to provide a framework where we can
    > > operate as a
    > > > > >standards group while remaining at all times in
    > > compliance with the
    > > > > >laws of the United States.
    > > > > >
    > > > > >-- On Mar 23 2004 at 10:48, Alec Stanculescu sent a
    > > message: > > > > To: alec@f4.fintronic.com, btf@boyd.com,
    > > vfv@eda.org > > > > Subject: "Apology!" > > > > Cliff, >
    > > > > > > > > > After apologizing, you included the
    > > offending statements for a
    > > > > >second
    > > > > > > round of distribution!
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > And, just to keep the record straight, are you stating
    > > > > that you never
    > > > > > > received money from any company selling EDA tools?
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Alec Stanculescu
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Hi, All -
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > My bad! I don't work for an company that sells EDA
    > > > > tools and I
    > > > > > > > forgot the new bylaws that forbid mention of
    > > companies and
    > > > > > > > product plans. I will refrain from mentioning
    > > companies in
    > > > > > > > future discussions.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > I hope the issues I raised do not get lost in my
    > > > > poor presentation
    > > > > > of same.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Sorry, all!
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Regards - Cliff
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > At 06:49 AM 3/23/2004, Michael McNamara wrote:
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > >-- On Mar 18 2004 at 18:01, Clifford E. Cummings
    > > > > sent a message:
    > > > > > > > > > To: btf@boyd.com, vfv@eda.org
    > > > > > > > > > Subject: "RE: PSL: Attributes for Verilog and
    > > > > SystemVerilog"
    > > > > > > > > > Hi, All -
    > > > > > > > >...
    > > > >
    > > > > ----------------------------------------------------
    > > > > Cliff Cummings - Sunburst Design, Inc.
    > > > > 14314 SW Allen Blvd., PMB 501, Beaverton, OR 97005
    > > > > Phone: 503-641-8446 / FAX: 503-641-8486
    > > > > cliffc@sunburst-design.com / www.sunburst-design.com Expert
    > > > > Verilog, SystemVerilog, Synthesis and Verification Training > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Mar 24 2004 - 15:55:22 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.