P&P: RE: Issues Log

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

Dear Jim,

See comments 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: 21 December 2003 18:45
> To: suo-policies@ieee.org
> Subject: P&P: Issues Log
> 
> 
> 
> MW: The document is precisely what we need to make progress on
> the work we are required to do. The only time I have ever seen
> progress in work of this nature is when an active issues log
> has been maintained.
> 
> JimS: I'm all for an active issues log, and if a starter document had
> trouble managing its quanity of open issues, I would (as 
> Chair) suggest
> they start using a log, in whatever form they desired.  I 
> don't think we
> should require it.  

MW: This is not just about the starter documents and the projects
developing them, but also about those members of the SUO WG that 
invest their time in reviewing those documents only to have that
time wasted when their issues are ignored or dismissed. Why do
you think SUMO has had so much difficulty gaining support?

MW: A Worl Programme to develop something is a waste of time
unless it is able to gain support. Without an active issues log
you are unlikely to achieve that. Therefore we are doing people
a favour by requiring it.

> I don't think we could enforce it.  If it's just
> guidance, I don't think we need a written policy to offer 
> such guidance. 

MW: Of course you can! If projects don't maintain an issues log
then you can call a motion to remove them from the SUO WG work
programme.
> 
> JimS: I also don't think a log would help our current starter 
> documents,
> much anyway.  With a log, you may get some members addressing open
> issues, 

MW: That is not the point of an issues log. It provides for
engagement between the community and the project and ensures that
the results of that engagement are public. This is what gives the
wider community confidence in what the project is doing. I have
personal experience of seeing this happen.

MW: Please note, that the policy does not require that members raise
issues formally. If they find that raising them informally gets
a good response that they are happy with, then it is not necessary.
However, if a member feels that an issue is ignored, or if an issue
does not have a ready solution, then being able to raise an issue
formally has real value.

> but what I believe we lack is users actually attempting to use
> the documents for real world purposes.  That IMHO is the only way you
> surface problems that really matter, and find members willing to spend
> the time and effort to resolve the issues. 

MW: Well I am not sure what any of the starter documents could be
used for - except mine of course which is a data model, and can be
used as the basis for a database definition - but ontology as we
do it here is more about reasoning than that.
> 
> JimS: OK, so if a log is a good idea (which I agree), I 
> suggest we see if
> SUMO, Cyc, IFF, and your 4-D Ontology can use such a tool to make
> progress.  

MW: We already have a resolution based on my original draft of this
policy that received an almost overwhelming vote in favour of
producing this policy. I have proposed a motion for this policy
to be adopted and it has been seconded.
Please call the vote. If there are specific objections during the 
discussion period I will try to address them, but if you thought
this was not a good idea, the time to say so really was when we 
had the original vote on the work programme to develop this policy.
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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!
>