Re: Time to request PAR extension
Jim, Phil, Jack, et al.,
I have a great deal of sympathy for Jack Ring's
suggestion (copy below).
But I also support Phil's recommendation. In fact,
the need to respond to the IEEE is a good opportunity
for taking stock of the current state of the projects.
The SUO list has been rather quiet lately, and I'm
sure that all of us would appreciate a review of
what, if anything, is being done about the projects
that we have blessed as "candidates".
I suggest that we ask the editors of each of the
candidate documents to submit a progress report
on their status.
But from long experience, we have all learned that
status reports by the developers tend to be over
optimistic. So I recommend that the report to the
IEEE should summarize the reports for each project,
but add a caveat along the lines of Jack's suggestion.
John Sowa
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Time to request PAR extension
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:55:27 -0400
From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
To: <standard-upper-ontology@listserv.ieee.org>
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."