SUO: RE: Re: SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Issue
Jon:
I didn't say that my boss trusted me, sans qualifications. I said that I
never found a serious disagreement on what counted as an issue.
On second thought, I have realized that the "serious" is a seriously fudgey
word. For I have indeed had discussions in which my boss, or someone else,
suggested that I include an issue on my weekly status report that I hadn't
thought to include. So apparently what they meant by "issue" was different
(a little wider) than what I meant.
So what I should say, about such situations, is that I don't believe that
starting out with a definition, like the one Matthew has, would have helped
any. Unless the definiendum is clearer than the term defined, i.e. unless it
eliminates what would otherwise be borderline cases likely to be
encountered, then I see no point in the exercise. I think the word
"paraphrase" is appropriate for such unenlightening definitions. And so, in
those terms, I think that the definitions given are paraphrases, and not
worth the effort.
Nor does this breezy "Let's get started, and skip the definitions" seem to
have led me to ruin. OK, I have encountered differences in what "issue" is
taken to mean. But we encounter them, and make our clarifications as we go.
With each difference in what counts as an issue, the attempt to say why Mike
calls it an issue while I wouldn't have may or may not lead to a general
rule. If a general rule can be found (It's an issue if the CIO is likely to
be concerned about it, whether or not it's an issue under your TQM
definition!), then we add that rule to the definition of "issue". If one
can't be found, we just add the issue, and move on. I just haven't found
that a lot of money and/or time has been lost on IT projects because of that
approach.
And thanks. Glad to be back.
And I thought you all had decided that anyone could raise issues, voting
member or not. I was just raising an issue about definitions (and issues).
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Jon Awbrey
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 12:01 AM
To: SUO
Subject: SUO: Re: SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Issue
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT :> Issue. Note 10
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
| "Who are 'You'?" said the Caterpillar.
|
| http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/carroll/alice/chapv.html
JA = Jon Awbrey
TJ = Tom Johnston
In regard to:
SUOPT :> Issue 06. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11675.html
TJ responded:
JA: But can we commence an Enumeration Of Issues if we
haven't yet decided what an Issue is? I think not.
TJ: I think we can. I often include an Issues section in the
weekly status reports for software projects I am managing.
And I've never found it necessary to define "issue". I've
never, for example, had my boss chastise me for failing to
include an issue, and discovered that he counted certain
"things" as issues that I did not. "Issue" is clear enough
for the blue collar working man.
I did say "decide", not "define", and it's clear
that you made your own decision, as you say that:
1. Your boss never decided to question your decision.
How did such an indecisive person get to be boss?
Poor you.
2. Your boss decided never to question your decision.
Is your karma so light that you merit such trust?
Lucky you.
But it's not in the spirit of this
roughneck drill to be so clean cut,
so I've decided not to question it.
TJ: Let's leave it alone until evidence arises that there has been
misunderstanding, or until discussion suggests that there might
well be misunderstanding if we don't stop and clear up the "issue"
that might lead to that misunderstanding.
Evidence in. Case still open. But 'who' are you to raise such issues?
A voting member of our Uppity Chain Gang? -- Then you may Raise An Issue.
A 2nd class denizen of Looking Glass Land? -- Sorry, must ask a question.
Simple enough? It's not what you don't know -- It's 'who' you are.
TJ: Can we commence an Enumeration of Issues if
we must first define "Issue"? I think not.
For then we must define each of the terms
used in the definition, and then each of
the terms used in the definition of those
terms, and so ad infinitum.
"Who's 'We'?", I ask? More impointily:
"Who are 'You'?", said the Caterpillar.
Tom,
Welcome back to the fray, but I'm afrayed you have some catching up to do.
I'll try to catch you up when I can, and you know I mean that in the best
possible sense of the word. Please make use my painstaking labors to set
out the fray in glorious array on my ram-shackled loom until such time as
my arachnautomatonymous (web spider nomen clattering?) x-pensees shall be
defrayed. And, yes, I know that staking pains is a faulty acupunctuation.
Vide At Eleven:
SUOPT Outline. http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd1.html#11635
On account of all this Jabberwocky (QV) the word "issue" has
become pragmatically useless for the time being, and so I'll
observe a moratorium on raising any further issues about, on,
or under its head(s), and shift my discussion to Defects and
Problems, de*capitated or otherwise.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o