Re: SUO: SUMO vote
Adam,
Would a short answer be that the SUMO will enjoy a privileged status
that no other document currently enjoys?
Bob
Adam Pease wrote:
>
> 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
>
>