IEEE 1680.2 IMAGING EQUIPMENT WORK GROUP MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday March 31, 2009
1 PM to 3 PM EST
Welcome from Pamela Brody-Heine and Holly Elwood, Co-Chairs.
Working Group Rostered Attendees:
Robert Alleger (Oki Data)Michael Anderson (Eastman Kodak)
Kevin Barry (Clarity Imaging Technologies)
Ligia Bejat (Lexmark)
Cate Berard (USEPA)
Mike Biddle (MBA Polymers)
Pamela Brody-Heine (ZWA)
Joe Burquist (HP)
Sandra Cannon (US DOE)
Sue Chiang (Ctr. For Environmental Health)
Mark Corbett (Pitney Bowes)
Jim Crossland (Infoprint Solutions)
Derek Dao (Samsung)
Sophia DesRoches (Canon)
Patty Dillon (Dillon Env. Associates)
Holly Elwood (EPA)
Cindy Erie (E-World Recyclers)
Joshua Gallegos (Sandia Nat. Labs)
Stephen Greene (Howland Greene)
Laura Heywood (UK Cartridge Reman. Assoc.)
Pamela Huddleston (Cherokee Data Solutions)
Ito Kousuke (Ricoh)
Richard N. Iodice (mBalance International)
Sego Jackson (Snohomish Co/NW Product Stewardship Council)
Christopher Kent (EPA Energy Star)
Richard Kerr (Bayer)
Barbara Kyle (Electronics Take Back Coalition)
Susan Landry (Albemarle)
Judy Levin (Center for Environmental Health)
Erica Logan (Xerox) / Ron Mateas (Epson)
Pat McPhail (Toshiba)
Alex McPherson (Clean Production Action)
Jennifer Miyamoto (Xerox)
Jeffrey Olsen (PA DEP)
Paul Panepinto (Green Plug)
David Pasquini (Konica Minolta)
Colleen Pickford (ITI)
Ed Pinero (Parsons)
Simon Redding (UK Environment Agency)
Wayne Rifer (GEC)
Tim Ringo (Konica Minolta)
Mario Rufino (Canon)
Mark Sajbel (USDA)
Itaru Sato (Sharp)
Chris Saunders (Lexmark)
Josh Saunders (UL)
Mark Schaffer (Schaffer Environmental)
Steve Scherrer (Bromine Science & Environmental Forum)
Miwa St. Onge (RISO)
Jenny Stephenson (US EPA)
Paul Swoveland (Lexmark)
Steve Tolan (Oce)
Leonard Tsai (self)
Lucien Turk (Dell)
Cat Wilt (Univ. of TN)
Jonathan Wood (Defra)
Aubrey Wooley (Canon)
Observers and Others Attendees:
Brian Hilton (RIT) / Ted Smith (Electronics TakeBack Coalition)Agenda Review & Webinar/Document Access:
No comments on the agenda.
Approval of February Minutes:
The Working Group discussed:
· Meeting minutes and use of names and/or organizations versus anonymity in meeting minutes
· The process of posting vote results – numerical results only or individual votes
It was decided that these items would be referred to the EASC to review so that the policy would be the same in all the 1680 working groups. The Co-Chairs also committed to asking an IEEE representative to join the next call.
Draft minutes from the February 25th meeting had been posted for review on the password protected section of the website. With one organizational name amendment, the 2/25/09 meeting minutes were approved. However, they will not be posted on the public portion of the website until the issue of attribution is resolved.
The Working Group discussed individual versus entity representation in the balloting process. One participant referenced the previous decision during the 1680 process to select an individual versus an entity balloting process; individual was selected because the cost was significantly cheaper for individual IEEE membership, which would allow for more participation in the standards development process by all stakeholders. It was decided that this discussion be tabled until the next meeting, when additional information from IEEE or the EASC can be brought back to the group.
Updates: The Co-Chairs provided updates related to the 1680.2 process:
· PAR Approval Status: The Working Group had agreed on the PAR, other than 2 sentences related to the scope of purchasers. During the 2/25/09 meeting the Working Group had considerable discussion, followed by a vote. The vote resulted in a 28-26 vote between the two options. The Working Group had agreed that the winning vote would be put within the PAR, to then be sent to the EASC for approval in their April 21 meeting.
· TV Study Group Status: This group is going to be voting on whether to form a Working Group to develop a standard, via an electronic vote. This will inform the 1680.2 discussion, especially in terms of our working with their subgroups on the common criteria discussion.
· 1680.1 Balloting: The balloting will close on April 16—after that, the 1680.1 Working Group will consider and respond to any comments, with a goal of having the final language to the IEEE for approval by September.
· Link to IEEE patent information is on webpage.
Subgroup Overview:
· Subgroup Documents: A Subgroups Documents directory has been set up within the members’ section of the website. Note that these directories are not nimble, and it may take a day or two to post.
Subgroup chair names and contact information can be found in a spreadsheet within that directory.
· Streamlining Subgroup Work:It was noted that people have indicated an interest in streamlining subgroup work to reduce overload of workgroup members. Subgroups can decide to meet one time a month as opposed to once every two weeks. Everyone should provide feedback to your subgroup chairs as to how often you want to meet, whether we should stagger the subgroups instead of running them all at one time – which would have the result of making the standard take longer to complete. There is a meeting of subchairs later this week where they will be considering ideas for spreading out the workload.
The Co-Chairs also asked that individuals consider prioritizing their engagement, especially since all decisions made in subgroups will ultimately come back to the full group for deliberations as follows:
o Sub-groups shall develop draft components of the standard for incorporation into the draft standard.
o Before submission of a draft to the Working Group for incorporation into the draft standard, the sub-group shall circulate the draft component to the Working Group membership for review and comment.
o The sub-group shall consider and respond to all comments received from the Working Group, and shall attempt to achieve consensus support of Working Group members.
o The sub-group shall adopt a draft component by a vote with participation of at least a majority of sub-group members and shall be adopted by a 75% vote of the members participating.
Two questions were raised:
Q) Why did approval of the PAR not take a 75% threshold?
A) IEEE does not require a 75% majority, and allows each Working Group to decide what thresholds to set. It had been clearly stated prior to the vote without any concerns raised by Working Group members that the Working Group would be using a majority decision in the vote on the PAR.
Q) How is representation being monitored across stakeholder categories and how many are rostered for maintaining balance in participation at decision-making venues?
A) The Working Group roster as well as each subgroup roster includes each participant’s stakeholder group affiliation. The Working Group Co-Chairs are monitoring the larger group balance, and there is a chart on the roster for all to see. Each subgroup chair is also monitoring balance in their subgroup and some outreach has been conducted to try to gain more balance in a few subgroups.
· Definitions Subgroup: Members outside of the manufacturer stakeholder group are needed to balance out representation. Contact the chair if you are interested.
· Subgroup Roster: A roster of all subgroups will be posted in the Subgroups Document: Shared Directory, once those lists are sent from all subgroup chairs
· Timeline: The current timeline for the Working Group was reviewed
One stakeholder stated that they felt that a June face-to-face meeting was too soon, given the workload that was represented in the timeline. Also, he said that there was no travel budget for his and other companies that would allow this type of meeting to occur. Several stakeholders concurred that they had no travel funding. The Co-Chairs will send out a Survey Monkey to get input from the full Working Group regarding meeting options.
Subgroup Updates:
Reduction/Elimination of Environmentally Sensitive Material: They met on March 19 with 23 members attending. They started the discussion of common criteria and the 1680.1 language as a started point. Most of the items in 1680.1 were initially recognized as common criteria, though the group wanted to collaborate with the Definitions and Consumables subgroups. Next meeting is April 9.
Materials Selection: They had their first meeting and went over the standard document and discussed logistics. They are trying to set up subgroup business electronically and have a conference call once a month.
Design for EOL & Product Longevity/Life Cycle Extension: This group has their first meeting set for April 3. They will be discussion logistics and common criteria issues. The chair would like to have a better handle on current EOL to inform the group as they move forward.
Energy Conservation: This group has met and gone through the 1680.1 criteria. They felt that all criteria listed there should be considered common. They reviewed the Eco-Standards chart, which has been updated for review on the next call. There was also discussion about overlap between this subgroup and corporate performance, particularly on embodied energy issues. They will meet again on April 22. They need additional NGO representation.
EOL Management: They met on March 23, and had about 20 folks on the first call. Their discussion was mainly on common criteria—they thought that takeback and auditing criteria were likely common criteria, but that rechargeable batteries were not. They will review the Eco-Label criteria at the next meeting on April 6. They also referenced the overlap with consumables and where they will be addressed in terms of EOL. They plan to meet bi-weekly.
Corporate Performance: This subgroup has not had a chance to meet yet but will shortly.
Packaging: They met last week, and reviewed the existing 1680.1 criteria and brainstormed other potential criteria. They are developing an on-line workspace and will be discussing common criteria on the next call.
Consumables: This is a very large workgroup which has met once, and will be meeting bi-weekly. There is a great deal of expertise in the group. They reviewed the EASC operating procedures and considered their overlap with other groups (such as EOL, packaging, materials). They are defining the scope of their workgroup since there are no existing criteria to work from.
IAQ: This group reported that they have had one preliminary meeting. They discussed scope of products, definitions questions, and the group committed to gather IAQ examples from other standards to inform their discussion. The group also discussed whether they had adequate technical experts on the call to inform the discussion.
Definitions: This is currently a group of 10, and they have no NGO or purchaser representation. Their first call is April 6, and they will review the Energy Star definitions for use as a starting point.
Next Steps: Co-Chairs will 1) ask the EASC to review meeting minute and voting procedures, 2) look at how to streamline activity of the subgroups, and 3) conduct a survey related to the June meeting.
Next meeting is April 30th at 1 PM to 3 PM ET.