SUO: Re: SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Issue
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT :> Issue. Note 9
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
CA = Chris Angus
MW = Matthew West
Cf. SUOPT :> Issue 08. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11698.html
In particular:
CA: I believe that anyone should be able to raise an issue.
What I would however propose is that we handle issues
raised by voting members slightly differently from others.
If an issue is raised by a voting member then it should
automatically be treated as a formal issue and thus be
subject to the process that you outline. If an issue
is raised by someone else then the project may choose
to make it a formal issue, in which case it is subject
to the same process, or the project may decide to reject
it prior to it becoming a formal issue. 'Withdrawn'
and 'Resolved' under this proposal would then only
involve voting members. If someone else raises an
issue and the project rejects it, it would then be
open to a voting member to make it a formal issue
if they believe it is important.
MW replied:
MW: What you suggest was the effect of my original proposal,
since Project Leaders will be voting members they are
quite at liberty to raise issues against their own
deliverables. Indeed active project members have
often raised more issues than anyone else.
MW: I can also see that that non voting members may dissappear and
it not be possible to get agreement on a resolution as a result --
but even voting members could dissappear (though they would no
longer then be voting members if we returned to the previous
wording).
MW: However you are the first person to say anything in favour
of restricting who can raise formal issues, so at present
the wording is liberal.
Matthew,
The Issue that you mentioned in your second paragraph
is one that is Normally, even Norm-ally, handled by
some order of "Due Diligence" clause.
I suggest, or Move if need be, that we consider the
Issue of Due Diligence with regard to Participation
and in the Working Group and the Status of Documents.
There are at least two places where such a consideration might be apt:
1. The Issue of Issue-Raisers, voting members or otherwise,
"disappearing", as you put it, thereby stalling the Process
that would otherwise be due them indefinitely or interminably.
2. The Issue of Project Exponents, by whatever name or title,
failing to participate with All Due Diligence in making use
of whatever Consideration and Regard and Status that the SUO
Working Group has granted to them.
Consequently, I suggest that the "freshness", as it were, of Participation,
Products, and Projects be assigned a default expiry date, not of course for
the actualization of pre-assigned results, for all of us move on unexplored
ground in this brave new world, but for the minimal adequate Responsibility
of Participation in the Development and/or Evaluation and/or Improvement of
such Procedures, Products, and Projects.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o