Re: Procedures Document
Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:00:49 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.misc.ontology.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o Re: http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg12469.html In: http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd5.html#12468 Copied here: | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o | | Jim, SUO Working Group, | | I object to adopting this document. | It achieves none of the objectives | that were discussed in open forum | for such a document, adds a lot | of procedural hocus-pocus to | the punch-&-judy show that | we already have, and the | manner of its creation | sets a bad precedent | for all future work. | | Jon Awbrey | | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o Jim, I will need to wait until the archive problem is solved before I can respond any further. Without an archive, there is nothing really on public record. I can explain the metaphor that I used in my original objection. By "punch-&-judy show" I mean that far too much of the outcome-deciding activity of this group goes on below the boards. Setting up yet another subcommittee list -- that you know only a few "interested" parties will have the time to join -- every time that there's a critical decision to be made, or genuine discussion of real problems in ontology for that matter, is part of what I object to. Jon Awbrey o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o [email protected] wrote: > > Jon, > > A single objection can prevent passage of a document by unanamous consent. > No reasons must be given. > > However, if you have objections, could you please explain what they are. > Maybe they can be resolved. Why put the group through a month-long formal > voting process if there is a chance we can resolve your objection? > > Jim > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:36:03 -0400 Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> writes: > > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o > > > > [Resending after 12 hours] > > > > Jim, Matthew, > > > > At a minimum I feel that this procedure document > > deserves a full vote. > > > > Jon Awbrey > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > Let me try this address. > > > > > > --------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: [email protected] > > > To: [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:13:28 -0400 > > > Subject: Procedures Document > > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > > > Jon, > > > Your objection to Matthew West's Procedures Document is > > > the only one outstanding, but he is unsure how he could > > > change it to resolve your concerns. If you still object, > > > could you help him better understand your concerns. > > > > > > Jim o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o