We, the SJTAG team, seem to have a process for approving the release of information to the public, but I do not think it goes far enough to ensure we don't have a policy that does not default to public unless otherwise noted. In the spirit of being open to the public, something the TTSC said the P1687 struggled with to the other extreme when they got started, we may be opening ourselves up to possible unfair business practices down the road as SJTAG becomes more firm or perhaps accused of misleading people as to the direction we are taking with the standard.Hello P1687 Working Group;
Several questions have been asked regarding the policy on sharing P1687 documents (including the draft standard) and the information contained in these documents with non-members of the Working Group. I have exchanged email messages with the IEEE Test Technology Standards Committee (TTSC) on this subject to see if the IEEE has a policy guideline for this situation. Below is essentially the response to this question.
The details of the standard, while it is still under development, are proprietary and therefore the detailed information should not be shared with anyone outside the Working Group without bringing this to the WG as a whole for discussion. In the public area of the web site are slide sets available for use in discussions outside the WG, but the meeting notes, drafts of the standard, and the information contained therein are not available for such. Approval by the WG for such discussions would be on a case-by-case basis. Approval should be for the benefit of the development of the standard, such as was suggested earlier that we have not had an inspection of the hardware rules with an eye toward routing. Permission would not be forthcoming simply to allow individuals or companies to "get a head start" on product or circuit development
Another public vs. private issue to consider is regarding meeting minutes that might cause problems outside the working group if published to the public (e.g., interim positions of company representatives or personality clashes that should not be made visible for the dignity of the group). Do we need to have public and private versions of the meeting minutes in the future?
Ian responded with some email to the forward of Ken's email I made to him as the chair and chair emeritus talking. Ian suggested I start this thread for discussion. I will let Ian add his email response to this thread so it captures the thoughts came from him as a followup to my question.