SUO: Re: Possible Ballot -- Meaning of Working Draft?
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Jim,
I refer you to just one of many previous occasions when a number of group members
were concerned about the precise significance of the "working draft" status, and
you assured them that it only meant that the document was worthy of further
consideration. I see no implication in what you said that the working
draft documents would be "exclusively" worthy of further consideration,
indeed, there is much in what you said that was aimed to minimize
the "source and depth of this phrase".
In view of your recent and rather surprising re-interpretations
of the working draft status, I believe that it is time for the
group as a whole to revisit the question and to follow your
suggestion that "If this makes a difference, we could see
if there's consensus for removing these words".
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> Subj: RE: SUO: RE: Possible Ballot
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 23:55:34 -0400
> From: "Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I" <James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>
> To: "'Horn, Graham'" <graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
> CC: "Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
>
> Graham,
>
> When Robert Kent and Adam Pease had indicated plans to propose their documents,
> I asked the P&P subgroup to help draft the ballot question. I wrote the first
> draft and inserted the phrase "with intent of developing it into the final SUO
> document." This goes without saying, after all, what other purpose could we
> have for working on a document. But I was concerned others might start
> submitting ontologies, glossaries, research papers, or other documents
> without such intent. That's the entire source and depth of this phrase.
> If this makes a difference, we could see if there's consensus for
> removing these words.
>
> Regarding your suggestion of bias in these words,
> this phrase was in both the IFF and SUMO motions.
>
> Jim
>
>
> [Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Horn, Graham [mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 9:50 PM
> To: 'Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I'
> Cc: 'John F. Sowa'; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: SUO: RE: Possible Ballot
>
> Jim,
> . May I suggest it isn't the "commence work' part, so much as
> the part that says "with the intent of developing IT (my emphasis)
> into the final SUO document".
>
> . This gives the motion far deeper reaching implications than
> you are acknowledging by just referring to the initial words.
>
> . I suggest there is considerable equivocation as to whether
> it provides a satisfactory structure for the final SUO document".
>
> . I suggest you need to look at such matters more holistically,
> if you are to appreciate the full gamut of implications. Then you
> can appreciate the complexities of why the motions need considerable
> and complex analysis.
>
> . Otherwise you give the impression of having a bias that is
> indicated as much by what you don't say, as what you do.
>
> . I suggest the wording we are using for this "commence work"
> type of ballot carries an air of bias. Personally, I'd be happy if
> we were to split it up into two different ballots, so that the
> individual issues of "commence work" and "adoption as standard"
> could be dealt with separately.
>
> . I feel John's insight into "people on all three sides (including
> the abstainers) ........ bogged down in endless legalistic manoeuvres ....
> (being) .... a sure sign of a bad decision procedure." Is a perspicacious
> one that we all do well to consider.
>
> Graham Horn
> National Data Standards Unit
> Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
> ================================================
> Phone: 02.6244.1094
> Fax: 02.6244.1199
> Email: Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I [mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
> Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2001 8:39
> To: 'John F. Sowa'; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subj: RE: SUO: RE: Possible Ballot
>
> John,
>
> You stated:
>
> "In the case of SUMO, the attempt to promote it to
> the status of a candidate standard was premature."
>
> SUMO and IFF were not proposed as 'candidate standards.'
> Both are far from that state. The votes were only whether
> to 'commence work' on the documents or not.
>
> A vote on a Working Draft indicates satisfaction with the
> current state of a document, which can still be far from
> complete. A vote on a Committee Draft is to determine
> if it is ready to be forwarded for formal IEEE balloting.
>
> If you are referring to my actions as 'legalistic manoeuvres,'
> I call this following the rules, my job as chair. If IEEE issues
> clear guidance to follow different rules, I'll certainly do so.
> For example, if abstains are to be counted, I'll rule the SUMO
> did not pass and I won't put up with any actions to change or
> redo the vote. I'll bet you'll want me to follow rules in
> that case.
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 10:04 AM
> To: Horn, Graham
> Cc: 'Frank Farance'; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subj: 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 manoeuvres. That is a sure sign of a bad decision procedure.
>
> John Sowa
>
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤