Re: SUO: SUMO vote
Mike / Adam,
Would either of you consider a circumstance where all documents enjoyed
the same status and it is made explicit that no document enjoyed any
privilege over any other? Any document (regardless of its merit or lack
thereof) could be posted to the same list (and be classified in the same
manner). Discrimination would occur by individuals deciding to work on
the document of their choice (i.e. vote with their feet). Documents that
have little merit would receive little attention. Each document would
have its own technical editor which would be the proposer unless he
declines. If two (or more) technical editors wish to merge their work
they could do so. When it becomes obvious that one of these documents
is reaching a very large majority (+/- 75%) then a vote would be held to
narrow the list or select a draft standard.
One of the problems with standards work in general and the SUO in
particular is that votes are called without first developing consensus.
Votes in standards organizations should not be called when the issue is
in doubt - unless it is some administrative decision that must be made
like dues, or voting for officers (i.e. unavoidable decisions). The
purpose is to create something that is widely accepted - in the
committee and in the community
The motion on the SUMO was avoidable. Has its result improved comity,
civility, cooperation or consensus?
One should call for a vote to formalize a consensus that has already
developed. A closely divided vote creates further division and results
in the sort of processes we are currently witnessing. I doubt if it
would be much different if the vote had gone the other way. Certainly
the division would remain.
What would Teknowledge lose or anyone else gain with this sort of
arrangement?
If it were obvious that a consensus of this nature developed and could
be formalized with a vote, I would withdraw my appeal and motion to
reconsider. (Having had experience with the chair's rulings I would want
some public assurance from the members that this proposal will have wide
support).
So, what do you think?
Bob
Adam Pease wrote:
>
> Mike,
> I don't think your suspicion is an accurate assessment. Everyone is
> free at any time to make a concrete proposal for a "starter document",
> as Robert has done. The next step is to create a "Working Draft" as
> Frank has detailed which requires 75% approval. At that point, there
> could be merger or downselect of any of the "starter documents".
> That doesn't however imply that re-votes can or should occur on the
> starter documents. If that were the case, each side in a vote could
> repeatedly call for re-vote on any issue until they got the outcome
> they wanted. That would result in our just having a continuous run of
> votes until there's unanimity, effectively rendering the SUO effort
> meaningless.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> At 04:44 PM 8/21/2001 -0700, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
>
>> At IJCAI, one of the points Adam made whilst unapologetically
>> canvassing for votes for SUMO, was that being accepted as a working
>> document really does not commit the group to SUMO. At any time it can
>> be voted down, and at any time a new document can be voted in. One
>> way to avoid need to wrangle with IEEE procedures is simply to call
>> for another vote. If I understood Adam correctly, this should be
>> unproblematic. What if a majority of people do NOT wish to adopt
>> SUMO. In that case, if people are worried that SUMO will fail a new
>> vote, and would attempt to block a new vote so as to protect the
>> status then this seems to be a serious undermining of the spirit of
>> this cooperative enterprise. Such behavior, if it is indeed going on,
>> would appear to be the height of absurdity. I hope indeed, it is
>> not going on. I confess, I have not read all the message, but I did
>> skim a bunch.
>>
>>
>>
>> mike uschold
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Adam Pease
> Teknowledge
> (650) 424-0500 x571
>
>