Re: SUO: Updated SUMO??
Adam,.
"Some obscure procedural objection" was a motion to reconsider based on
a one vote margin. The day the vote was a was announced people stated
their desire to change their votes from ABSTAIN to NO. I agreed with
the chair that late votes cannot be counted but made a motion to
reconsider - a very common motion in cases of close votes.
The fundamental issues are
(1) Teknowledge's desire to gain and maintain a privileged status
vis-a-vis other contributors.
(2) Your view that opposition is obstruction and those opposed should
leave
Of course, the issues are compounded by your attitude that you are the
one who decides who should (not must) go and who should stay. I'm not
suggesting that you leave, but I am curious - if you lose the SUMO vote
will you take your own advice and leave?
Bob
ps - a few quibbles,
There were no P&P motions, the P&P did not approve any motion at all and
certainly not the SUMO motion drafted by the chair.
I did object to the chair (acting as chair) (1) drafting the SUMO motion
(on the ground that it is very improper for the chair to show partiality
in an issue before him as chair), (2) giving an interpretation of how
the vote will be decided within the motion, and when I raised a point of
order (3) ruling on his own interpretation of the motion he drafted.
I'm sure you must regard my action as obstruction.
You have criticized me for not offering alternative language to the
SUMO motion - that is because I oppose the motion. The same applies to
the SUMO. I do not think it has the slightest chance of becoming a
widely accepted standard. It does have a chance of poisoning the well
for a well thought out standard. (Something that periodically happens
in AI).
Thank you for bringing up the PAR. I did go back and review it and its
associated documentation. Although I have quibbles about the wording
(what's in, what's out, some expressions, issues that Lee brought up), I
am sure you will be relieved to know that I do (generally) support it on
most of the issues it addresses. A really nice thing is the PAR makes
clear that the SUO is a committee. It was very instructive and useful.
Thanks again.
Now that I answered your "fundamental question", how about answering my
(not very fundamental) question. If the members who voted against the
SUMO persist in their opposition do you really think (as you stated
below) that they should leave?
pss - is the conversation over when you've had the last word?
rgs
Adam Pease wrote:
> 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
>
>