Re: Procedures Document

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

I am reposting this to the Ontology List in hopes that
at least one of you blasted robots is doing your job,
you bit-twiddling twit.

| Your message  is being returned to  you unprocessed because it  appears to have
| already  been  distributed to  the  ONTOLOGY  list.  That  is, a  message  with
| identical text  (but possibly with different  mail headers) has been  posted to
| the list recently, either by you or by  someone else. If you have a good reason
| to resend this message to the list (for instance because you have been notified
| of a hardware failure with loss of  data), please alter the text of the message
| in some way and  resend it to the list. Note that  altering the "Subject:" line
| or adding blank  lines at the top  or bottom of the message  is not sufficient;
| you should  instead add a  sentence or  two at the  top explaining why  you are
| resending the  message, so that the  other subscribers understand why  they are
| getting two copies of the same message.

     Subject:
            Re: Procedures Document
       Date:
            Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:06:03 -0400
      From:
            Jon Awbrey <[email protected]>
        To:
            Ontology <[email protected]>
 References:
            1

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



o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o