SUO: Re: Further guidance from SAB
Jim,
Internet have been created by "expert contributions" suitable to serve
general public needs. ( I have discussed that case personally with one
expert of those - Robert Khan - a few years ago in Pavia University). And
the official networking standard was supposed to be ISO/OSI, as we all
know. I think that this WG should find ways to get in touch more directly
with the general public to find out what are this needs, but Government
needs are in my opinion good starting points to serve general public needs.
All the best. Roberto.
Ps: I have learned a lot from John Sowa notes and writings, but If I will be
ask to cast a vote again I will change my IFF vote from ABSTAIN to NO
(because the IFF proposal appears to be - to me - as an opportunity
driven instant venture).
-----Messaggio Originale-----
Da: "Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I" <James.Schoening@us.army.mil>
A: "Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Cc: "Lowell G Johnson (E-mail)" <Lowell.Johnson@UNISYS.com>
Data invio: 24.febbraio.2002 13.32
Oggetto: SUO: Further guidance from SAB
>
>
> SUO WG,
>
> I spoke to Lowell Johnson, IEEE Computer Society Standards Activity
> Board Chair, regarding how to deal with the BoG directive during the
appeals
> process.
>
> One thing that's clear is that the process followed by the BoG is a
> big unknown, so it's anyone's guess how to properly deal with the
directive.
> Was it the result of an informal appeal? If so, to what body would I or
> anyone (if desired) appeal this decision? I appealed to the SAB (the next
> higher level), but I'm sure they'll conclude they have no authority in the
> matter, so I'll probably have to appeal next to the ISSS-SA BoG. This
might
> seem futile (since it was their decision), but does offer hope, since this
> time I'll have a chance to present my case.
>
> Also, the directive stated the SUMO vote failed and directed our
> group to take another vote. Should I proceed with conducting this vote, or
> wait to see if someone makes a motion for another vote? Lowell and I
agreed
> Friday the BoG probably meant we should revote only if anyone wants to.
>
> Another issue is the current state of the outcome of the SUMO vote.
> I originally fealt that since the BoG directed a new vote, and I appealed,
> that the state remained unchanged (i.e. it passed). Lowell and I
discussed
> this on Friday and now agree that the action of the BoG changed the state
> from 'Passed' to 'Failed.' If the appeal wins, this could revert back to
> 'Passed,' but at the moment, it is considered to have failed. On the SUO
> web site, we'll move the SUMO link from 'Starter Document' to 'Expert
> Contributions.'
>
> Jim Schoening
>