SUO: Re: An idea for making progress
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Robert Spillers wrote:
>
> Jim,
> You are suggesting yet another vote on these same documents.
>
> Calls for comments may be done without a vote. Your message suggests
> that the real reason for a vote is "whether to raise each document to
> 'Working Draft' status". As far as I can determine there is no IEEE or
> IEEE-SA definition of a "Working Draft" (or "Starter Document" either).
> It appears from your past messages that you invented these terms and
> gave them the definitions you wished. Now you want to call a vote on
> whether to elevate one or more of these documents to a status of your
> own invention.
>
> Just ask members for their comments.
>
> Bob
>
> jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > Here's an idea for how to make some progress on each of the three
> > doucment. Call for comments on each of the documents in the form of a
> > vote on whether to raise each document to 'Working Draft' status. The
> > objective of the vote would not be to collect enough YES votes, but
> > rather to collect serious comments on what members want to see
> > incorporated in the document before willing to YES in follow-on vote.
> >
> > It is true that comments could be solicited without a formal vote,
> > but I believe having the vote will encourage more members to submit serious
> > comments.
> >
> > Jim Schoening
Jim,
I agree with Bob. I do not think that we should have
any more voting, except to admit additional documents
to preliminary consideration, for another year or so.
Scientific and technical issues are simply not best
decided that way. Nor will it do anything in support
of your recent remarks about achieving consensus, since
all of our voting periods have been extremely divisive,
putting the contributors of documents in a defensive,
if not evasive position, instead of encouraging them
to seek out the advice and critique that they need.
The ongoing discussions and debates of this membership have
been positively full of "serious comments on what members
want to see incorporated in the document[s]", and though
I know that you did not mean it that way, it is perhaps
a little insulting to the membership to suggest that
comments are not "serious" unless they are directed
toward an active ballot.
My present comment is this. My consistent, long-standing, and very serious
suggestion as to should be incorporated into the prospective SUO, at least,
any component or module of it that is intended in support of critical,
educational, engineering, research, and scientific applications, is
that it absolutely must incorporate, in a usable manner, the content
of basic undergraduate knowledge, hopefully extendible in the direction
of graduate expertise, in all of the relevant subject matters and methods.
I am taking it on faith, but only provisionally, that IFF has staked out
a big enough tent for this, and John Sowa has told us that this was an
initial intention of Doug Lenat in the Cyc project. But it will take
an order of work far more "serious" than the mere casting of ballots
in order to accomplish these very worthwhile goals.
In particular, there are several miles of stratosphere, and not a little
vacuum of space, between where we stand and the exalted heights of IFF.
And though I would not for a moment wish to block anybody's view of
this nor any other of the beautiful blue skies that are constantly
being gesticulated at over our heads, I am a building up from
the earth sort of worker, and there is much to do within my
demesne in humble support of all these grand mansions and
greater visions. So I will now get back to work on that.
Respectfully,
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o