RE: P&P: FW: Proposed Revisions to Website

["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: 31 December 2003 15:13
> To: suo-policies@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: P&P: FW: Proposed Revisions to Website
> 
> 
> 
> > 1. We need to make a clear statement of how votes are 
> > counted. It matters much less that they are voted one way 
> > or another, than that you know which way. As I understand
> > it, this is not something we can choose, only understand.
> 
> JimS: I think we can all agree there are conflicting rules.  
> I have been
> directed to include ABSTAINs, which is what I have done, and 
> nobody has
> appealed to date.  

MW: There are two issues here, what counts as an abstain, and
if that doesn't include everyone who hasn't voted, there is
still the possibility of an appeal - in fact I would be very
inclined to do just that to resolve the matter. However, having
that hanging over us is unsettling.

> I agree we should post this rule, which 
> is:  A motion
> will pass if YES > NO + ABSTAIN.  

MW: I agree this is what you have applied, but I gave some
reasons in my other note for preferring >50% of voting membership,
plus an appeal could still be made in the future. With the
more stringent rule there is no possibility of appeal, and I
think that is worth something.
> 
> > 
> > 2. I think we need to get past some of the history around
> > starter documents. To do this we need to focus around what
> > there is clear consensus on, which is the Lattice of Theories
> > proposal. This has been deliberately inclusive, and all
> > the important contributions we have are either part of it
> > or relate to it. In particular I think we need to loose the
> > term "starter document" which is at best misleading, and at
> > worst has caused considerable contention. I would suggest
> > a term like "contribution" or "component" or "subporject" 
> > as a way to refer to all the individual efforts that have 
> > been referred to in a successful ballot.
> 
> JimS: I agree this is confusing, but I don't think it is 
> worth the long
> debate it will take to arrive at a new label.  A rose any 
> other name is
> still a rose. 

MW: Yes, but "starter document" has a bit of stink about it.
I appreciate we disagree about this, and I have therefore
already agreed to take this up with the wider membership.
> 
> > 
> > 3. I think we should have a page that records our resolutions,
> > i.e. motions that have passed their vote. Then we have a clear
> > record of what we have agreed to. It is supprisingly hard
> > to find previous motions in the archive, not least because
> > we have used inconsistent language in them (and why
> > wouldn't we?)
> 
> JimS: Agreed.
> 
> > 
> > As separate issues I think we should:
> > 
> > 1. provide clearer guidance on how to use MajorDomo - we get
> > regular pleas to the list asking how to unsubscribe.
> 
> > 
> > 2. Provide links to the relevant IEEE SA documents that
> > govern our actions, and our policy in interpreting them
> > (e.g. becoming a voting member etc.)
> 
> JimS: The 6-month rule for becoming a voting member was a policy we
> adopted.

MW: yes, it is on the "how we do business" page.
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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!
>