Re: SUO: SUMO vote
Bob,
At 10:14 PM 8/21/2001 -0700, Robert Grayson Spillers wrote:
>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?
That is in fact, the current situation. Jim included this clause in the
SUMO and IFF motions.
> 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.
This would be one possible approach, but misses the step of "starter
document" that Frank has outlined in the IEEE standards process.
> 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?
If it had been avoided we would be just a discussion group. Now we have
(at least) one document to focus on. As for improving civility,
cooperation or consensus, you can help. Let's focus on the actual
technical work instead of procedural maneuvering. If you don't like SUMO
or IFF, provide technical comment on the axioms or terms that you feel are
flawed or missing.
>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?
I think that this is just another procedural comment. The group can best
be moved forward by addressing concrete technical issues.
Adam
>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
>>
>
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571