Re: SUO: Updated SUMO??
Bob,
Hasn't this conversation gone on long enough? People can make concrete
proposals. When they do, the group votes on them. We go through two
stages of voting and each stage has a higher standard. Pending some
obscure procedural obstruction, SUMO has passed the first hurdle. IFF may
as well. So might other proposals. All this has been explained. If you
don't like the basic goals and process of the effort, then this is likely
not the right effort for you to participate in.
The only reason I suggest that your participation is not appropriate is
1. You haven't made any concrete technical comments. This would mean
proposing a new term or axiom or stating why some term or axiom in a
concrete proposal like SUMO of IFF is wrong.
2. You've voted or argued against every procedural issue including the
PAR, the P&P motions, and the SUMO proposal.
3. You've argued for a process that does not conform to the IEEE process.
This is certainly not true even for most of the folks who voted against
SUMO. The most fundamental question which I've posed and you haven't
answered is whether you support the existing PAR for this group. If you
don't then it's not the right group for you to be involved in. That's not
to say that you might not make a productive contribution in another
forum. I can't understand why it's in your best interest to obstruct this
group when your efforts could be put to productive use in another forum.
Adam
At 04:12 PM 8/25/2001 -0700, Robert Grayson Spillers wrote:
>Adam,
>So, if the SUMO vote fails and this reverts to the status quo anti the
>SUMO vote - then what will it be? And what was it we were doing for the
>past year? Was it only when SUMO gained a position of privilege that if
>became a standards effort? Will you invite all those who voted against
>the SUMO to leave as well?
>
>Bob
>
>Adam Pease wrote:
>
>>
>>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
>>
>
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571