Re: SUO: SUO Procedures
West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
> Dear Murray,
>
> I guess you are not too aware of the history of this group.
> Over the last 2-3 years we have had a lot of contention over
> voting, and what constitutes a majority, and there have been
> votes the result of which have been contested.
I'm aware of contention around here, but not specifically on
voting issues. But I can certainly understand.
> So I am trying to head towards an Issue based approach to
> making progress, with occassional formal votes. So anyone
> who thinks there is something wrong with a deliverable can
> raise an issue against it, and the project responsible for
> that project must record and respond to that issue. These
> are part of our public record. Whilst a project can reject
> an issue, such behaviour would be likely to influence the
> formal vote.
I was only worried about the project moving forward without
a consensus gained from the quieter contingent. I've no doubt
about the other part of the group.
> But I get ahead of myself. I posted a draft document with
> my motion, if you take a look in the archive you will see
> more of the intent.
Yes. Will do.
> I don't really think voting helps to improve a deliverable
> much. On the other hand I think raising and resolving issues
> does. We need votes when we want formal approval.
>
> So I am really asking if there are any issues against the
> process I have described (informal at this stage).
I don't have any. I agree with TQM principles as well, and have
been trying to get a set of stated requirements for the XML work
to be done so we're all certain when and if it meets those
requirements. (I was forced into Quality training at two or three
of my jobs over the years, so I see both the up and downsides of
it. I also think it's simply good engineering to have a metric
for success, which as you've said is necessary for the SUO as well.)
Murray
...........................................................................
Murray Altheim http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK .
Entitled Continuing Collateral Damage: the health and environmental
costs of war on Iraq, the report estimates that between 22,000 and
55,000 people - mainly Iraqi soldiers and civilians - died as a direct
result of the war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3259489.stm
Entitled Continuing Collateral Damage? ...a euphemism for BushCo.