SUO: Re: SUOP Topic :> Current Draft Of Procedure Text
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT :> CDOPT. Note 3
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
| "You Are Here" (YAH) Running Head --
|
| SUOPT :> CDOPT. http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd2.html#11706
|
| "Persons Of Play" (POP) Information
|
| JA = Jon Awbrey
| MW = Matthew West
|
| "In Regard To" (IRT) Information --
|
| SUO Procedures Document Draft 3 (MW, 19 Nov 2003):
|
| SUOPT :> CDOPT 01. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11706.html
|
| "History Of Comment" (HOC) Running Subhead for JA --
|
| 01. SUOPT :> CDOPT. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11706.html
| 02. SUOPT :> CDOPT. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11770.html
| ...
SUO WG, Procedure PL,
Continuing from where I left off last time.
| 2.4. Stage 4. Standard Proposal
|
| The project [Project Group? Proposers?] should attempt to resolve
| any formal issues raised as a result of the Draft Standard ballot
| and then when the Project Leader is satisfied that as many formal
| issues as possible have been resolved, then the document can be
| submitted for vote as a Standard. The voting is as for a Draft
| Standard. The standard is passed if a majority vote for it,
| but in the event that there are any "no with comments" votes,
| the Project Leader should consider resolving the formal
| issues and resubmitting the document for a further vote.
What is "Project" (inaminate subject, so to speak)?
Project = Project Group? Proposers?
"Should attempt to resolve" lacks procedural definition here.
"Formal issue" still lacks operational definition here. Now,
maybe you have a polished gloss for it at the end, but it would
be a good thing if the reader had the sense of the words in mind
the first time that he or she -- or who knows? maybe someday it --
read through the text, depending on your philosophy of semantics,
of course, but my own preference, one that I heartily recommend for
the Group's consideration is "anticipatory modeling practice" (AMP),
as marked from, say, "closing the theory door after the modela have
got out". At any rate, that would put some "elbow grease" into all
the polished glosses.
"... when the Project Leader is satisfied ..."?
Again the PL's level of satisfaction is not the business of the WG,
even if it were possible to gather evidence to check declarations
made with regard to it. The prima facie evidence for this formal
order of "satisfaction" is simply that the PL acts in a certain
public way with regard to the Proposal Document, so, cutting
to the chase, what is that Action?
"... that as many formal issues as possible have been resolved ..."?
Who is the judge of this possibility? The PL or the WG?
"... then the document can be submitted for vote as a Standard"?
Passive with elliptic agent. Who can submit it?
Will break here.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o