Re: SUO: RE: Possible Ballot
Graham,
I wholeheartedly agree:
> I suggest it was a bit more complicated than that. The
> critical feature was the fact that the closeness was accompanied by
> only a small number of Yes or No ballots. That meant that the real
> justification for proceeding on the basis of the vote is very tenuous.
>
> I suggest the real aim is to make quality decisions,
> and develop quality product, rather than "play rules".
As I said in earlier postings, every standards project I have
ever participated in tried to achieve a consensus or something
as close to a consensus as possible. If an important motion
seemed to have a significant number of objections, the vote
was usually postponed until the motion could be revised to
make it more acceptable.
In the case of SUMO, the attempt to promote it to the status
of a candidate standard was premature, and the plurality of
40% to 38% was about as far from consensus as one could get.
Since then, people on all three sides (including the
abstainers) have been bogged down in endless legalistic
maneuvers. That is a sure sign of a bad decision procedure.
John Sowa