A rush to judgment by the IEEE-SA BoG doesn't necessarily make them right.
I wonder how many really understood the issue before raising their hands?
And as for their authority to follow this process and issue this directive,
may you can explain it to me, because I fail to see the Due Process or Openness.
You can appeal the wisdom of this decision, but are you denying the authority
of the BoG to make the decision? Do you claim that this decision is not
binding on you as chair and the SUO WG as a committee? 780D366C8FDBD411859D0000F808137101EBAAE2@mail5.monmouth.army.mil">
Bob,
Your arguments are so empty.
Being a big expensive law firm doesn't make one right. If you support
the opinion by Dorsey and Whitnet, please explain why it's valid if it ignored
that fact the the SAB requires WGs to follow RRO. You can't.
A rush to judgement by the IEEE-SA BoG doesn't necessarily make them
right. I wonder how many really understood the issue before raising their
hands? And as for their authority to follow this process and issue this
directive, may you can explain it to me, because I fail to see the Due Process
or Openness.
If you think the Teknowledge legal opinion is not valid, please point
out any problems with it. It just lays out the logical case why working
groups can follow RRO, so you don't need to be a lawyer to read or understand
it. It's thorough, which nothing else to date from IEEE has been.
Again, your arguments are empty. If you think you're right, let's hear
some substance.
Jim Schoening
Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I wrote:
780D366C8FDBD411859D0000F808137101EBAAC2@mail5.monmouth.army.mil" type="cite">
John,
Consensus needs to be achieved by the END of the standards
development process. There's nothing wrong with starting with a thin simple
majority. The reasons standards development is called a consensus building
process is that you often start without it.
RGS: I think this really does
reflect Jim's view of consensus. Narrow majorities create dissension
regardless of who "wins". One should avoid votes if the outcome isn't
clear. In a standards group votes should be called to confirm an existing
consensus. If the consensus is not there a narrow "win" by either side
does not persuade the other. The only way this might create a large majority
is if members of the opposing view leave in disgust - perhaps an objective.
.
I think one reason for Jim's view is so that he, as chair, may report
progress toward consensus. This view of consensus is similar to Enron's
view of revenues.
780D366C8FDBD411859D0000F808137101EBAAC2@mail5.monmouth.army.mil" type="cite">
As for a vote on SUMO, we had one, which I firmly believe was a
valid vote, so I must stand up against the unsubstantiated opinions of
others.
RGS: It is worth noting that
the "others" are the Board of Governors and the was decision was unanimous.
The "unsubstantiated opinions" are actually a formal decision of the
appropriate authority. Jim disagrees with the legal opinion offered by
the BoG's outside counsel and prefers the opinion of Teknowledge's in
house counsel.
Note: There is a significant difference between "in house"
and "outside" counsel. Both are attorney's. An in house counsel is an
employee of the corporation subject to the same inducements and pressures
as any other employee. An outside counsel is not an employee, they are
independent professionals and usually have many other clients. When a
corporation wants to be sure their legal advise is not colored by internal
pressures or politics (i.e. the advise is independent of the company)
they usually retain outside counsel.
I am not an attorney but in the 1970's I spent several years at the counsel
table in federal court as the senior litigation analyst (we called it
the beachmaster) for IBM in the west coast antitrust trials - much larger
trials than the Microsoft case. IBM's in house General Counsel was Nick
Katzenbach a former U.S. Attorney General and Undersecretary of State
who was probably the best legal strategist of the last century (also the
guy who faced down George Wallace at the University of Alabama when he
was deputy to Bobby Kennedy). Hundreds of other in house counsels worked
for Nick - all of them very good lawyers. No major decision was made
without the advice of outside counsel and all of the courtroom litigation
was done by outside counsel. Enormous sums of money were involved, all
of the cases went to the U.S. Supreme Court and we won them all.
780D366C8FDBD411859D0000F808137101EBAAC2@mail5.monmouth.army.mil" type="cite">
We followed Robert's Rules of Order, as required by the CS SAB
P&Ps, and as all other working groups do. IEEE leaders and lawyers were
unaware of these P&Ps and this common practice when they issued their
outside-of-due-process directive. I'm appealing this directive in hopes
that someone in authority will stop and look at the facts.
This is not just about SUMO. IFF would probably also have failed,
though the directive was contradictory on whether non-votes count. If this
directive is enforced throughout IEEE, I'd expect half the working groups to
run into major problems. It would not impact the end game, for strong
consensus is needed at the end of the process, but there are lots and lots
of other aspects of the process that don't need consensus, where a simple
majority has worked just find for the past century.
RGS: Perhaps
th is is a reason that so many standards are that in name
only and never achieve broad market acceptance.
780D366C8FDBD411859D0000F808137101EBAAC2@mail5.monmouth.army.mil" type="cite">
Jim Schoening
Bob