Re: SUO: SUMO vote
Bob,
I'm disappointed to see a response with such sarcasm. As Frank has
detailed, the IEEE process moves from "started document" to "working draft"
and then to standard. I don't see why a proposal made by any one person
should be expected to have the same status as a document that the group has
voted to work on. No one is "slamming the door". Anyone is free to make
another concrete proposal, just as Robert has done, which, if voted on by
the group, would then have equal status as SUMO. I hope that people will
do so, rather than just casting aspersions.
Adam
At 04:16 PM 8/23/2001 -0700, Robert Grayson Spillers wrote:
>Gee Adam, let me see if I got this right. No " starter document" has
>precedence over any other document -- as long as the other document(s) is
>not just an ordinary document that anyone might choose to submit. We
>would have to have a vote just like the one we recently had for each
>document.. Of course everyone would agree and be willing to support any
>other document wanting that coveted "starter status". But wouldn't people
>get tired of all those votes?
>
>Wow, how could I have been so stupid -- the answer was right in front of
>me. After one is astounded with the brilliance and perfection of the SUMO
>why would they bother to consider any other.
>
>I must have misread your note about abstaining on the IFF vote. Surely no
>one from Teknowledge would take the attitude that once they are in --
>let's slam the door behind us. Surely this must be the result of my
>overly suspicious and procedural mind.
>
>Bob
>
>Adam Pease wrote:
>
>>
>>Bob,
>> That's correct I don't agree with your approach. No document that has
>> the approval of the group, as a result of a vote on its status as a
>> "starter document", has precedence over any other document with that
>> status. Naturally a document which the group has voted to work on has
>> precedence over a document offered by an individual. I doubt that there
>> will be an overwhelming number of documents offered that address the
>> PAR, but if we do wind up in that situation, we can worry about it
>> then. Since after over a year we only have two documents that have been
>> offered for a vote there's no evidence that this will be a concern.
>> I don't see how you can consider this a technical discussion rather
>> than a discussion over procedure but I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
>>
>>Adam
>>
>>At 09:13 AM 8/23/2001 -0700, Robert Grayson Spillers wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>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
>>
>>Adam Pease
>>Teknowledge
>>(650) 424-0500 x571
>>
>
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571