Re: RE: Time to request PAR extension
Why not just state the facts, to wit,
"this group now knows enough about the assignment to know that they don't
know enough about the fulfillment of the assignment to be making any
judgment about status of such fulfillment let alone making any prediction of
fulfillment date but remains committed to the assignment so requests two
more years to continue the exploration."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Jackson" <phil.jackson@computer.org>
To: <jim.s3@juno.com>; <standard-upper-ontology@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 6:55 AM
Subject: 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
>