Vice-President’s Remarks

1. Vice-President’s Remarks Jim Moore Standards Activities Board, 4 Feb 2014 Draft 1

2. SAB has 4 Groups of Stakeholders • The Standards Sponsor Committees • IEEE Standards Association • Other Standards Developing Organizations that cooperate with us • IEEE Computer Society • We need to provide and receive benefit to/from all 4 • We need closer relationship with all 4

3. Standards Sponsor Committees • Improve connections between Standards Sponsor Committees and other programs in IEEE Computer Society. • Training • Conferences • Publications (inc Computer) • Chuck is the chair for a series of columns on standards • Create win-win mechanisms to re-organize sponsors with low vitality. • Specify the role of the SAB Sponsor • Revise P&P for smoother operation • Specify the role of SAB

4. IEEE Standards Association • SAB Vice-Chair, Don Wright, will represent SAB-generated issues to the Standards Association and seek resolution. • We seek improved support from IEEE-SA of liaison relationships with other SDOs • We seek to build upon the already strong staff-volunteer relationship.

5. Other SDOs • Continue liaison relationships with: • SC 7, software and systems engineering • SC 38, cloud computing • Create liaison relationships with: • SC 27, computing security • SC 40, IT governance and service management

6. IEEE Computer Society • Computer Society goals that depend on SAB and the Standards Sponsor Committees • IEEE CS will develop and maintain standards for professional practice defining best practices in key computing professions • IEEE CS will provide a respected and globally recognized spectrum of training opportunities • IEEE CS will provide standards of practice for the computing professions that reflect best practices, and provide support for organizations to incorporate these practices • SAB needs to revisit and redefine our support of these goals.

7. budget

8. Summary of 2014 Budget

9. Controllable Expense: Volunteer Travel • Volunteer travel is budgeted at $41.5K. • Cuts have already been taken. In past years, it has been as high as $68K. • 2013 Actuals: • 50%: SC 7 Liaison • 50%: volunteer travel to SAB meetings and other meetings • SC 7 liaison cost approximately $17K in travel in 2013 (but we had to ration participation, hence diminishing effectiveness.)

10. Plan • SC 7 liaison supports a central goal of the Computer Society. It has already been cut to the point that threatens effectiveness. • However in 2015, it can be reduced by one person, without additional adverse impact. • In 2014, we need to add one person for liaison to SC 40. • We will seek industrial funding to support liaison for SC 27. • We will seek IEEE/industrial funding to support liaison for SC 38. • We will initiate conversation with IEEE-SA about subsidizing the expense of liaison. • Even if successful, this is unlikely to have a result prior to 2016. • We will introduce standards-makers to relevant program boards in CS to explore opportunities for new programs. • For example, LTSC representatives will meet with EAB VP at Feb meeting. • Of course, new or enhanced programs may induce additional requirements for standards liaison.

11. SAB Volunteer Travel Budget Needed Note: This is shown in constant dollars, assuming no inflation in travel costs. Industrial or IEEE funding is assumed for SC 27 and SC 38 participation.

12. Backup

13. Cuts we have absorbed • Full funding would be about $27K. • Last year’s actual expenditure was about $17K. • We sent only one person to each US meeting. (One of those was local to him.) • Last year, one of the international meetings was in Canada. (In 2014, the corresponding meeting is in Sydney.) • We sent only 2 persons to the European meeting. • We restricted the days attended by each person. • Effectiveness of the relationship may be declining. (As Woody Allen says, “80% of success is just showing up.”)

14. Background: SC 7 Liaison • The liaison relationship with ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 7 was created in 2001 and reiterated in 2008 as a result of the CS Software Engineering Presidential Oversight Committee. • It has the purpose of encouraging the evolution of international and IEEE standards for software and systems engineering in a manner consistent with CS investment in SWEBOK and related materials. • International standards that are inconsistent with SWEBOK and with IEEE standards would reduce the value of the training programs and other products based on SWEBOK. • 3 persons support the liaison effort, covering the development of different areas of standards (systems engineering, software engineering, safety engineering). • Attending international standards meetings – 2 per year. • Attending US “national body” meetings – 2 per year. • (In addition, 1 person – funded by PAB – supports CS interests in standards for bodies of knowledge and certification.) • Each person has duties in SC 7 that cannot be unilaterally abandoned. A minimum of one year’s notice is required. • As a rule of thumb, each international meeting for each person costs $3.5K and each US meeting costs $1K. So, full funding would be about $27K.

15. Opportunities and Challenges • Opportunities: • In 2015, the role played by one member of the SC 7 liaison team will naturally come to an end. • Challenges: • Some of the work formerly done by SC 7 has been split off into a new SC 40 (IT Governance and IT Service Management). We need to create a liaison to it. That will add one person attending two international meetings plus two US meetings. • To support the cybersecurity initiative, we need to create a liaison to SC 27 (Computing Security). That will add one person attending two international meetings plus four US meetings. • There is a possibility that we might need to fund participation in SC 38, Cloud Computing, in the future.

16. Financial Puts and Takes • 2014 and beyond: • Add one person to SC 40, $11K (two US meetings, two international meetings, fees) • Seek industrial funding for one person to SC 27 • 2015 and beyond: • Subtract one person to SC 7, $9K (two US meetings, two international meetings)