Re: SUO: Updated SUMO??
Bob,
Since Jim has requested that we "call a truce" I'll respect his request
and not respond to this message.
Adam
At 01:35 AM 8/26/2001 -0700, Robert Grayson Spillers wrote:
>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
>>
>
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571