SUO: RE: SUOP Topic :> Current Draft Of Procedure Text
Dear Jon,
See comments below.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@att.net]
> Sent: 23 November 2003 11:12
> To: SUO; West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Subject: 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?
MW: Chagned throughout to be Work Programme Team.
>
> "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.
MW: There are definitions at the end. We could put defined words in
bold, but you don't get that in ASCII. ISO puts definitions at the
front, but no-one ever reads them there and they just stop you getting
to the meat. So I have gone for the back. I am also trying hard to
minimise special terms and usages. I've added a reference to the
Definitions Annex at the first occurance of "formal issue".
>
> "... 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?
MW: Noted. I will prepare a revised text.
>
> Will break here.
MW: Thanks for these comments, I find this approach constructive.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>