Fw: RE: Time to request PAR extension
Phil,
Your questions and statements are fair, but there is no way our group will agree on which document is what percent complete. The committee will probably approve the extension without question, but if they do, I will explain we have multiple starter documents that some members feel are rather mature. The write-up already states we have no consensus on which document to advance.
I hope this adds some perspective.
Jim Schoening
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Jim,
Sorry if I missed this -- Which starter document claims to be 80% complete?
On what basis is this claim made?
If such a statement is made, it should be explained so that its limitations
and implications are clear. Ideally, the group as a whole should be able to
support the statement. Minimally, the owner of the starter document should
be able to explain and defend the claim.
Phil Jackson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of
> jim.s3@juno.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 6:29 PM
> To: standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG;
> SUO-STATUS@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Time to request PAR extension
>
>
> ATTN SUO Members,
>
> It's time to request an extension from IEEE for our
> Project Authorization Request. The typical request is for an
> additional 2 years, and further extensions can be requested
> provided progress is being made. I am told by IEEE staff this
> first request will be easy to obtain.
>
> This is a chair administrative action not requiring
> formal voting, but I naturally seek your input and consensus.
>
> Attached is the application form, which asks for an
> explanation of progress, which we obviously have differing
> opinions on. I mention our 6 starter documents, state one of
> them (which is not named) is 80% complete, but am clear that we
> have no consensus to pursue any one of the documents. The 80%
> figure is not an endorsement of any one of our documents, but
> rather just an administrative statement to show progress.
>
> Does anyone have any suggested changes?
>
> Jim Schoening
>