| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Bob, Currently
we have two classes of documents on the SUO web site at http://suo.ieee.org: 1.
Documents being worked on by this working
group(Merged Ontology is only one listed) 2.
Papers and other documented submitted by members. It sounds like the second category is what you are
referring to in your motion, yet you use the words: "Document being worked on by this
Working Group." I see no
way a WG can be “working on” a document without group approval to do so. What if it’s out of scope, or if all
but one person doesn’t want the group to spend any time on it? What if it violates a copyright or its
contributors don’t follow IEEE rules of fairness, openness, or due
process? It’s fine
for people to submit documents and unofficially have members work on them
(that’s how documents get started), but we need to be clear whether a document
is under WG control or not, i.e. whether the WG is working on the document or
whether it’s just the work of some individuals. There’s a significant difference. So,
if you are proposing that anyone may submit a document and individuals can
unofficially work on it, we permit and encourage that now. If you are proposing that a single
individual can commit the WG to work on a document, I see major problems as
stated above. ------------------- The
Merged Ontology could be get company at any time. Documents from Matthew West, Nicola Guarino, Robert Kent,
and Philip Jackson (Glossary) have all been possible candidates. I have discussed this option with each
of these individuals (to bring their documents into the group, and under group
control).
---------------------- Regarding
the concern with the supposed ‘status’ of the Merged Ontology, on a scale of
0-10, its status is probably no more than a 1. It will need to pass multiple votes as a Working Draft, then
a vote by this WG to forward for Sponsor Ballot, and then pass (by 75%) the
Sponsor Ballot. Jim
Schoening -----Original
Message----- Jon. John,
Chris, Graham, Thank you for your comments. I have
drafted a motion that I will eventually offer for general consent (unanimous
consent). I think it is what most people thought there were approving in
the previous "straw vote". I invite any comments or suggestions. I would
very much like this to pass without objection. However, a single
objection defeats a motion for general consent. If it cannot be accepted
by general consent, I will offer it as a motion requiring a vote. Bob Motion: Request for adoption by
general (unanimous) consent. Resolved: Any member of the IEEE SUO Working Group
may post a document to the SUO web page as a "Document being worked on by
this Working Group." The member who posts a document is
presumptively the technical editor of the document and by posting agrees to
perform this role or alternatively name another member who agrees to perform
the role of technical editor. No vote will be required to post a document
or name an editor. The statement "All documents
posted are deemed to have equal status and no document has any preferred
position over any other document." will precede the list of documents. |