RE: RE: Time to request PAR extension
Jim,
I understand that the group as a whole cannot agree on which document is
what percent complete, at this point. So, I suggested that minimally if a
document owner is claiming a document is 80% complete, then the owner should
be able to provide an explanation of this claim. If the owner has an
explanation, then I would have no problem in simply reporting such a claim,
while stating that the group as a whole has not yet reached consensus on
completeness.
Rereading your original post, perhaps this claim is not being made by a
document owner, but is just an "administrative statement" based on your
judgment. If so, then I would suggest adding a statement in section 5, along
the following lines:
"Response to 7a below: This is an estimate based on administrative judgement
of the Working Group Chair. The group as a whole is not ready to vote on an
estimate of percent completeness. However we have multiple starter documents
that some members feel are rather mature."
These are just suggestions -- perhaps this kind of thing is commonplace and
understood in PAR extensions, though I don't know. I'm just inclined not to
make a statement without qualifications that we could later have to
explain -- my inclination would be to have the statement qualified and
explained up front.
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: Friday, August 20, 2004 12:30 PM
> To: standard-upper-ontology@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: 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
> >
>