Re: SUO: SUMO vote
Adam,
I take it your answer is NO.
One comment. If no document has precedence over another (the central
point of my recommendation) why does the IFF need a vote to be
considered in the same status as SUMO? And doesn't the "procedure" you
advocate require a vote every time a new document is offered? A
potentially large number of votes and ones that will further divide the
committee.
Perhaps one man's procedure is another man's substance.
Bob
Adam Pease wrote:
>
> 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
>
>