P&P: RE: Fw: SUO: Motion to Adopt Standard Upper Ontology Working Group Development Guidelines, Version 1.0 D5

["West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <matthew.west@shell.com>]

Dear Jim,

See responses below.


Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk


> -----Original Message-----
> From: jim.s3@juno.com [mailto:jim.s3@juno.com]
> Sent: 20 December 2003 04:05
> To: suo-policies@ieee.org
> Subject: P&P: Fw: SUO: Motion to Adopt Standard Upper Ontology Working
> Group Development Guidelines, Version 1.0 D5
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew,
> 
>                I commend you on your hard work on this document.
> 
>         I don't understand what problem this document is attempting to
> solve.

MW: The lack of traction that curently exists. The important part is
the identification of issues and the maintenance of an issues log.
> 
>         It appears to formalize a process, which in my 
> opinion, doesn't
> need to be formalized.

MW: Please explain where it is formalised that there shall be an
issues log for the deliverables we develop, it shall be public,
and the status of issues shall be maintained.
> 
>         I agree the group needs to make a group decision 
> whether to work
> on a project or not, but we've done that several times already without
> the need for this guidance.  And you can't specify what needs 
> to go in a
> motion.  RRO allows almost any motion.  

MW: I agree RRO allows any motion, I am not trying to prevent that, only
to provide some structure and provide some guidance as to what is useful.
Most of the motions we have had so far have been woefully inadequate as
has often become clear later.
> 
>         This states that interim votes are not taken, only 
> final votes. 

MW: No, it says there is (at least) one interim vote and one final vote 
- if successful. Failure results in recycles.

> RRO allows anyone to make a motion for a vote on a document 
> at any time. 

MW: Yes. That would just be in addition to this process.

>  In fact, I like this approach since it encourages people to take a
> position on an evolving document and submit comments.   I see 
> no reason
> to prevent such interim votes.

MW: I am not trying to do so. But I think people find motions a
cumbersome way to work as a main driver of progress.
> 
>         Final votes are when a WG decides a document is 
> mature enough to
> send to IEEE for a formal ballot, by a balloting group. Some 
> groups will
> send a document that is only 80% or 90% complete, knowing they will go
> through several rounds of ballots, so they'll have time to fix the
> balance of the document.    If and when the SUO WG feels it 
> is ready to
> send a committee draft to IEEE for formal balloting, it will take a
> majority vote per RRO, and make that decision.  This is an established
> process, so there's no need to write a policy on it.  Build 
> the consensus
> to get to a majority vote on a committee draft is and should be an
> informal process.

MW: The problem has been that the informal process has had no traction.
You can raise issues, but often they have simply been ignored when it
was not convenient to the deliverable owners. This has lead to frustration
amongst those who have taken the time to read and comment on deliverables,
and of course if you are ignored you quickly reach the conclusion that 
you might as well not put the effort in. We have to get past that.
> 
>         In conclusion, I suggest we seek to identify specific 
> problems,
> and only develop policies to specifically address those problems. I'll
> post some problems in a separate message.

MW: This does address specific problems. You have focussed entirely on
the wrong part of what I am proposing.
> 
> Jim Schoening
> 
>          
> 
> 
> --------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <matthew.west@shell.com>
> To: "Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)" 
> <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:16:44 -0000
> Subject: SUO: Motion to Adopt Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
> Development Guidelines, 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> A week has now passed since I posted the above document, which
> can be found at the URL below.
> 
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/SUO-Procedures/documents.html
> 
> I have received no comments on the document since that time
> either on list or off list. I am therefore proposing a motion
> to adopt them, as outlined in the process step 6 as described
> here:
> 
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/SUO-Procedures/index.html
> 
> I therefore propose the following motion:
> 
> The Standard Upper Ontology Working Group resolves to adopt
> "The Standard Upper Ontology Working Group Development
> Guidelines, Version 1.0, Draft 5" found at:
> 
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/SUO-Procedures/Documents/SUO-De
velopment-G
uidelines-V1D5.pdf

as its process for developing draft standards and other
deliverables from approved Work Programmes.


Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!