SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
LIS. Discussion Note 22
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Matthew,
Let's see if we can do a bit of after action analysis on what
happened to your proposal. Naturally, I can only present my
observations from the point of view of my own participation
in the action.
First of all, I want it on record that I took the tasks of the
discussion period very seriously and that I was dutifully doing
my duty to analyze the document that you submitted, much in the
way that I'd go about the conceptual clarification and data-model
analysis of any other such project that I have ever consulted on.
So I began in this way:
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10712.html
....
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10767.html
....
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10774.html
....
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10781.html
At that point PG breaks in with an attack
on the very mention of semio-anything:
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10768.html
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10776.html
Then JFS comes back from holiday or something, and without
making the slightest attempt to review the grueling week of
logical bit-picking that we had devoted to the task, co-ops
the thread with what is probably the title of his next paper:
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10783.html
Fell right into PG's trap he did.
Now, I have no stones to throw on any of those scores,
but when the hue and cry starts, I know who usually
gets the blame, and somehow it will always be those
darn Peirceans, with their inability to tackle the
details of anything half-way remotely brass-tacks,
nitty-gritty, or "pragmatic", ironically speaking.
Then, to my way of thinking, you stepped all over your own motion
with a second or a revised motion, it wasn't really clear at first
which, then on top of that raising a whole new procedural ballyhoo.
I was totally stumped at this point. I would normally take this as
a sign that a person has some underlying ambivalence about his own
motion, and that might lead me to vote against it -- but the real
question is: What do any of our votes on these Start-Working Docs
mean at this point?
The best that I can tell, de-facto-wise, is that a yes vote means that
a document is worth discussing. I have already voted with my time that
the LIS proposal is worth discussing. But whether it gets discussed and
how it gets discussed seems to depend a lot on the proposer.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o