Re: SUO: SUMO vote
Bob,
A short answer is that any starter document is more privileged than one
individual's proposal. A working draft is more privileged than a starter
document. A standard is more privileged than a working draft. All of this
has been discussed in detail already.
Adam
At 05:09 PM 8/23/2001 -0700, Robert Grayson Spillers wrote:
>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
>>
>
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571