SUO: RE: RE: RE: RE: Process for accepting "working papers" / "expert contribu tions" -- RE: RE: Violation of process
Dear Matthew and Jim,
The questions I asked below were posed earlier this week, before it seemed
that people were converging toward a consensus. If in fact we are reaching a
consensus, then these questions may have effectively already been answered,
and the idea of voting on them individually would not make sense. Rather,
the best way to ratify the consensus may be through a motion to be adopted
by general consent, such as has been proposed by Bob Spillers and is
currently being developed in other threads.
Along these lines, Jim and Matthew's comments below indicate that we should
make a clear distinction between an "expert contribution" and a "working
document". An expert contribution may be brought to the group without a
vote, and one or more experts may work on developing it informally, without
implying any endorsement by the SUO working group.
A working document would be something that has reached the stage where a
sufficient number of the members of the SUO working group want to have it
endorsed by the working group as a potential candidate for the final SUO
standard, and want to appoint a technical editor to formally control its
development.
Note that under this definition, SUO could have more than one working
document and they would all have equal status, i.e. just being a working
document would not mean that SUO had selected that document as the final
standard.
What is "a sufficient number", and are there any limits on when a working
document may be proposed? These questions are further discussed below.
Another question is whether we should even have working documents at all, or
should everything be an expert contribution? How do we move from expert
contributions to the final SUO standard? I am not an expert in standards
development processes, but it seems clear these things need to be spelled
out in advance -- we need a roadmap that shows how we'll get from here to
there.
> > 1) Should we have any formally designated working documents
> > at all at this
> > point? (yes, no, abstain)
> >
> > JS: Any member can propose any document at any time. If
> > seconded, it must
> > be put to a vote. The vote determines whether it is mature
> > enough. You
> > can't tell someone they can't propose a document because you
> > don't think it
> > is mature enough. All you can do is vote against it.
>
> MW: It depends what you mean by "Working Document" in recent
> correspondence
> I have been using Working Document in the sense that John and Bob
> have taken
> to be Expert Contribution.
>
> You seem to be talking here about a document that has reached the stage
> where
> we are looking to agree to move it becoming a standard. In this sense I
> agree
> with your comments, but would observe that we have no documents that are
> currently in or near that state (IMHO).
Again, we need to clearly define what we mean by a working document. For
now, I will use the definition I gave above.
People (even experts) may honestly disagree about whether a document is at
the stage where it should become a "working document". The only fair way to
resolve such a disagreement would be through a vote. Granted such a vote
will always be based on people's judgments, but at least a vote would
provide a formal method for weighing and recording people's judgments, and
reaching a decision by the group. A vote will also provide closure, and
avoid endless debate, provided the mechanisms for conducting a vote are
clearly understood and agreed beforehand.
> >
> > 2) Should any documents be designated as preeminent over
> > others at this
> > point? (yes, no, abstain)
> >
> > JS: Listing them in the order of approval is probably the fairest.
>
> MW: Yes, using a numbering system would be useful for this. I
> also think we
> need some basic classification system, such as Content, Methodology,
> background/supporting documents.
This sounds fine to me. It seems clear there is consensus we should not
designate one expert contribution as preeiminent over another, or one
working document as preeiminent over another.
There is also no reason to say that working documents are preeminent over
expert contributions. For example, at this point in time, OpenCyc might be
considered as at least a potential "expert contribution". If the "merged
ontology" is a working document, then it is certainly not more likely to
become the final SUO standard than OpenCyc.
> >
> > 3) If we have working documents, what procedure should be followed to
> > designate something as a working document (Choose one):
> >
> > A) A vote requiring a plurality of voting members in favor of
> > the document?
> >
> > JS: Majority vote, with Abstains not counted, is what I've always
> > seen. SUO has
> > about 50 voting members, but only 24 cast votes in the straw poll.
> > A plurality is too high a barrier.
This is ok with me. If more people abstain (or don't vote) than vote no or
yes, then only those who vote no or yes would decide the issue.
>
> MW: This is appropriate once we think we have something we want to
> standardise.
> >
> > B) Any voting member may submit a document and it is automatically
> > recognized as a working document?
> >
> > JS: I see no way we can allow a single member to commit this
> > WG to working
> > on a document. The chair would need to monitor things like fairness,
> > openness, due process, copyright permissions, etc. A
> > Technical Editor would
> > need to be appointed/selected and would need to get group
> > approval before
> > making changes. Even if we voted in favor of this, I expect
> > IEEE would
> > overrule us. Besides, doesn't the group want to have a say
> > in what we are
> > working on, and what we are viewed as working on. I also
> > think we wouldn't
> > want to be working on more than a handful of documents. We
> > can achieve this
> > same end by permitting anyone to submit any document, seek informal
> > participation, and voluntarily follow the rules of IEEE, but
> > NOT have any
> > official status as a group project. When ready, it could be
> > proposed as a
> > group effort.
>
> MW: Yes, this would be the Expert Contribution, which is the stage I think
> we are at now.
I agree, a single member should not be able to commit the entire WG to a
document. A vote should be required for that.
I am still unclear about the question, when and how do votes for working
documents get proposed? Now or at some future time, Matthew and many others
mahy believe we do not yet have something ready for the status of a working
document, but there may be other experts who disagree. If someone believes
their document is ready for consideration as a standard, then they should be
able to test their belief in some formal way, and not be prevented from
doing this just by the individual assertions of others who disagree.
Another question is what is the status of the "merged ontology"? Is it no
longer a working document and are the results of the straw poll revoked?
Should we have another vote just to be fair to the proponents of the merged
ontology? Or do they wish to withdraw the "merged ontology" from
consideration as a working document, and propose it only as an expert
contribution at this time?
Phil Jackson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"At any rate, it is clear that nothing but a principle of habit, itself due
to the growth by habit of an infinitesimal chance tendency toward
habit-taking, is the only bridge that can span the chasm between the
chance-medley of chaos and the cosmos of order and law." - Peirce, CP6:262.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Disclaimers. www.philjackson.prohosting.com