RE: P&P: Progress

["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: 10 January 2004 15:47
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Subject: Re: P&P: Progress
> 
> 
> Matthew,
> 
>         In general, I suggest we see what we can do to address each of
> these areas between ourselves or within the P&P group.  If we 
> bring any
> admin issues to the full group, hopefully we'll have 
> consensus from P&P,
> and we can hopefully pass the issue by unanimous consent.
>         I am against bringing issues to group where we already have
> objections, unless it's an issue that must be voted on or 
> something that
> will potentially truly matter.  We can't ignore the high cost 
> of bringing
> such issue to the full group.
> 
> Specific responses below:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:03:29 -0000 "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE"
> <matthew.west@shell.com> writes:
> > 
> > Dear Jim,
> > 
> > We have a number of matters outstanding:
> > 
> > - The proposed web site,
> 
>         I suggest you and I see what we can agree on, run it past P&P,
> then if we feel we have the authority to make the change, 
> we'll make it. 
> I against any SUO votes regarding the web site.  

MW: That is fine. I believe I have responded to all the issues you have
raised against the proposed web-site. So I am waiting for your further
review and comments.
> 
> > - The procedures document,
> 
>         You have substantial objection from Frank Farance and 
> I.  Even if
> it were brought to the full group, I doubt you'd get 2/3rds 
> vote to pass
> it.  If you still feel you want to pass something, I suggest 
> you boil it
> down to something very short, and something nobody will 
> object to, so it
> can pass by unanimous consent.

MW: I have responded to or rebutted Frank's issues without further
response from him. You seem to object to the procedures document on 
principle but have made no detailed objections. 

MW: Perhaps I need to remind you that the development of this document
resulted from a motion (with an initial draft attached) that passed
with 47 votes for, and just 5 abstentions. I would not have presumed
to undertake the work without a vote in favour, but this is in fact
the largest vote any motion has secured, and considerably more than
the 2/3 majority required. Development since then has been entirely
driven by comments received and at present all specific comments 
have been responded to in the latest draft (posted on the web site
yesterday). 

MW: As far as I can see, the remaining differences are of principle
as to whether we need something of this sort at all, a matter on 
which the SUO-WG has already made a resolution.

MW: I certainly think we have reached the end of what can be
achieved on this matter in this group, so I think we need to return
this to the main group for their decision - noting the dissent that 
exists here.
> 
> 
> 
> > - E-mail list code of practice,
> 
> I view this as a last resort and only needed if there is no 
> other way to
> deal with the certain member I had to call to order.  He is 
> quiet, so I
> suggest we hold off.  If things become a problem, I'm going 
> to go to my
> superior at CS SAB and get direction.  But, as a last resort, 
> we may have
> establish such a policy.

MW: This is like doing work wihout a contract. It is fine if all
goes well, but if it doesn't, you end up in a hole, and in the 
meantime people are not sure what "they can get away with".

MW: One thing I would like to bring forward from that work is 
the offer of webspace to members for broadly relevant material
that might otherwise clog the e-mail lists, since this might
head off some of the historical issues. What do you think about
this?
> 
> 
> 
> > - Ambiguity in membership policy,
> Rules always have ambiguity.  In the US, our Congress passes 
> the laws and
> our courts interpret them.  In SUO, the full group passed the 
> policy and
> the Chair interprets it, which I have done.  I suggest we leave it as
> such and I doubt anyone will object.  Besides, how would this look to
> reopen this issue, since we just passed it.

MW: Fine. Then I suggest simply adding a note to the policy on the proposed
web site to make the interpretation clear.
> 
> Jim
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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!
>