Re: SUO: Updated SUMO??
Bob,
That's correct. That's not to say that such efforts can't be
worthwhile, but that's not what this group is for. SourceForge is a good
example of a repository into which anyone can place whatever they wish.
Adam
At 02:24 PM 8/25/2001 -0700, Robert Grayson Spillers wrote:
>Adam,
>Uhmm, let's see if I can get this correct.
>
>If everyone who wishes to is freely allowed to contribute whatever
>documents they think would be valuable to a standard (and without the
>having to conduct a vote on each contribution) - that would not be a
>standards effort. We know this from Frank's assurances that it would
>not. Anyone interested in this sort of aberrant behavior should find
>another place to do it.
>
>Bob
>
>
>Adam Pease wrote:
>
>>
>>Bob,
>> As Frank has quite clearly explained though, that wouldn't be a
>> standards effort. If that's the process you want to follow, ok, but an
>> IEEE group is not the place to do it. IEEE specifies a different
>> process. Start a discussion group or industry consortium effort elsewhere.
>>
>>Adam
>>
>>At 09:26 PM 8/24/2001 -0700, Robert Grayson Spillers wrote:
>>
>>>And if the SUMO vote fails the status will be that no document
>>>(including the SUMO) will enjoy any privilege over any other document -
>>>in contrast to the SUMO having a privileged position if the vote stands.
>>>
>>>
>>>No contributor will have to win a vote to have their document considered
>>>(along with the others). No one (or company) will be able to assert
>>>that their work is the presumed heir to the standard.
>>>Anyone can offer changes to any of the documents.
>>>
>>>Bob
>>>
>>>Schoening, James R CECIL DCSC4I wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ian,
>>>>
>>>> Please allow me to play the devil's advocate here.
>>>>
>>>> If the SUMO vote stands (which I am on record as believing it
>>>> will),
>>>>that means you can no longer make changes on your own to the document. You
>>>>can post proposed changes (if you have some consensus), but you need to
>>>>clearly distinguish between the version approved by the group and any
>>>>proposed later revisions.
>>>>
>>>> You'll also need to distinguish between your role as a major
>>>>contributor and your possible role as the Technical Editor. The Technical
>>>>Editor must follow the consensus of the active participants. As
>>>>contributor, you can propose whatever you'd like and fight for it, but you
>>>>can't decide to put something in unless you have some degree of consensus.
>>>>I'm sure you'll know it if people objects to any changes.
>>>>Jim Schoening
>>>>
>
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571