SUO: Would like more discussion on normative wording
At 16:44 2003-11-30 -0000, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
>
> Dear Jim,
>
> I note your request to move the work on the procedures project away from the main list.
>
> I do not really think this would solve any problem.
>
> 1. The procedures work should be the concern of the whole group. In my view voting members have an obligation to be involved in their development.
>
> 2. It does not address the signal to noise ratio of Jon's posts.
>
> 3. I assume you are receiving some complaints about Jon's contributions that I have not seen and are not public. I could only wish that they would devote their time reviewing and commenting on the Procedures Document instead.
>
> 4. I might be critical of the manner of many of Jon's posts, but he has undoubtedly contributed much to the procedures document. Certainly more than any of his detractors.
Matthew-
I used to read the postings on the SUO list on a regular basis and I would occasionally contribute to them. However, my overall sense is that the SUO list lately has been at a low point. In other words, the discussion had degenerated into postings from mostly four people. Since 2003-10-01, there have been approximately 800 E-mail messages on the SUO list of which 80% (640 messages) is contributed by the following four people:
~400 Jon Awbrey
~100 John Sowa
~80 Matthew West
~60 Tom Johnston
Jon A's contributes 50% of the E-mail traffic. Generally, I have little interest in reading Jon's E-mails because (1) there is little content, (2) they aren't concise, (3) they rarely make a relevant point, and (4) their esthetic appears to be more focused on style (rather than substance). So it takes a lot of effort to tease out the essence of Jon's E-mails -- it's simply not worth my while for relatively little payoff.
Regarding John S's E-mail, I've expressed my frustration that his E-mails (in my opinion) are lots of handwaving without really confronting the following issues: (1) ultimately, there must be a computational aspect of his work and it hasn't been expressed (in his KR book, his E-mails, his presentations, etc.), and (2) one can only interpret CGs consistently if one includes John S in the interpretation process (read: inconsistent interpretation by others). In short, there's a lack of depth and a lack of precision.
So that accounts for 62% of the E-mail traffic.
For the discussion regarding the "procedures document", I was under the impression that we were going to start *technical* work on the EXPRESS (and other) stuff. The latest draft of the procedures document is just re-inventing several other documents, such as the IEEE Standards Companion and IEEE Operations Manual. Simply take these procedures and add a earlier "less-formal-phase" (i.e., a formal balloting and comment resolution process that is done in the WG, but not as formal as the Sponsor Ballot).
I haven't complained too much about the "procedures document". These relevant documents (Standards Companion and Operations Manual) have been discuss earlier on this list. I just observe a common human behavior that I've seen elsewhere: the need to invent (or re-invent) so that the group has a sense of "ownership" of the work product (e.g., procedures document). And I appreciate that we are operating exclusively via E-mail with no in-person meetings -- so I'm willing to tolerate some reinvention if it produces stronger consensus, better working relationships, or both.
In conclusion, in the past two months I've seen very little discussion that attracts me, i.e., discussion on the development of normative wording for technical specifications that relate (in some way) to the topic of "ontologies".
-FF
______________________________________________________________________
Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com
Standards/Products/Services for Information/Communication Technologies