SUO: Updated SUMO??
At 14:24 2001-08-25 -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. ...
Bob-
My guess is that you already know the answers to your questions (so why waste time?). Just for the record ...
- The SUO WG is an (ANSI) accredited standards development committee, which means voting is required. Without voting, it can't be an (ANSI) accredited standards development committee.
- The SUO WG is developing a standard, as described by the SUO PAR.
- The SUO WG's members are volunteers, they can choose the level/type of participation (e.g., do you want to be a reviewer? do you want to contribute proposals? do you want to contribute "starter documents"? and so on).
As I said previously, the process you desire is:
- A discussion forum, not an accredited standards development process. If you want a place to publish your work and hope that people "vote with their feet", then publish in a journal, or create a product that wins the market over. You are certainly free to do that, but [that is] ...
- Not the IEEE process.
The choice of where to participate (discussion forum, accredited standards development committee, creating a product, etc.) is a choice that only you can make for yourself.
> ... Anyone interested in this sort of aberrant behavior should find
> another place to do it.
I don't like the way you put spin on this, i.e., calling it "aberrant behavior". I just explained the rules/framework of IEEE and the accredited standards development process and I gave no it "spin" ("aberrant behavior" or not). Certainly, there are many good reasons to publish in journals, and there are many good reasons to develop commercial products/services. But the scope/purpose of **this** committee is standards development, not a discussion forum.
At 16:12 2001-08-25 -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?
No. The SUO WG has been a standards effort since the WG was formed and the PAR was approved (about a year ago). The approval of SUMO does not change that status.
Again, your perception of "privilege" is wrong. The SUMO document and its changes are now controlled by the SUO WG, not its submitters. (Maybe you might consider that as a loss of "privilege"? :-)) Again, there is no sense of "privilege" as in the way you describe it.
> ... Will you invite all those who voted against
> the SUMO to leave as well?
It is unlikely that one would want to suggest that the "non-prevailers" (those not on the prevailing side of a vote) depart. Certainly everyone wins and loses motions/proposals in committees.
But this is not what Adam was referring to. Adam was referring to support for the SUO PAR, and more specifically you have still not answered Adam's question about **your** support of the PAR (also, he asked about your focus on procedural issues and your lack of technical contributions). The PAR is the "mission" of this project. In most any volunteer organization it is reasonable to wonder: if a member doesn't support the "mission", then why are they volunteering? (FYI, if one is only interested in finding out what's going on in SUO WG, then he/she doesn't have to become a member, he/she only needs to listen to the E-mail reflector.)
Adam's curiosity was not along the lines of "[inviting] all those who voted against SUMO to leave ...". Adam's curiosity was along the lines of: of those No votes, how many of those voters do/don't support the SUO PAR (i.e., "the mission")? <-- That is an interesting question for a consensus-building committee.
In conclusion, you are free to participate (or not) in SUO ... this is your own choice. If you choose to participate, I hope you support the PAR and I encourage you to make constructive, technical contributions.
-FF
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com
Standards, products, services for the Global Information Infrastructure