From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Sat Jul 14 10:54:31 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_HYV7Q4Eepj7vj/L1HZWYbg)" Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:51:31 -0400 From: Stephen Peront Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13 In-reply-to: Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Content-language: en-us Thread-index: AcfGPaGbY06C9mjeSxS39+jvYnY05QAAFTNA X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_HYV7Q4Eepj7vj/L1HZWYbg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi Rob. How can your suggestions to this committee be taken as anything other than efforts to convince this committee to push for the denial of DIS29500 as an International Standard given what you regularly write on your public blog? http://www.robweir.com/blog/ The top of your blog has an image that says OOXML. It sounds like you are just looking for more time to "persuade[d] more committee members to vote "No, with comments"" so that you can help with your publically stated efforts to squash DIS29500 (OOXML), rather than make it a better standard. It is becoming clear to me that anyone who votes "No, with comments" is taking part with you in a mission to do everything in your power to squash DIS29500; rather than taking part in an effort to make recommendation of what is best for the US (which is what this committee has been called to do). Have an awesome day! Cheers, -Stephen From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:35 PM To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13 With more than two alternatives no voting system is fair. This is Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. The world plays around with Proportional Voting, Single Non Transferable Voting, but this just patches one problem while creating another. This is the nature of the beast and we need to deal with it. But I certainly agree that with more time to review the standard and process more comments, I could have persuaded more committee members to vote "No, with comments". But the time was simply not there. I think that should be a greater concern, that we went to a vote with comments that had been submitted but not yet discussed, and that even these comments represent a review of only a small portion of the DIS. I'd also note that the members who voted against the No and Abstain positions were predominately those who joined just recently, at one of the last 2 or 3 meetings. If we were able to give these new members more time to read the DIS and the comments processed by V1, as well as for them to acquaint themselves better with how JTC1 ballots work, I think we could have reached a consensus on the "No" vote. So I agree with you in principle that more time would have been preferred, but not just more time for debate, but more time to review and discuss comments as well. -Rob ___________________________ Rob Weir Software Architect Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software IBM Software Group email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com phone: 1-978-399-7122 blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/ "Tom Ngo" Sent by: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org 07/14/2007 01:05 PM Please respond to incits-v1@incits-v1.org To cc Subject RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13 I mean this in the most constructive, even-handed way possible: . I interpret a yes/no vote on "X with Comments" to ask whether the voter considers "X with Comments" to be better than "Y with Comments" or "Z with Comments", i.e., the best of the three. . We never voted on questions like this: given a choice between two alternatives, "X with Comments" and "Y with Comments", would you prefer "X with Comments"? I am not claiming that Stephen made a motion of the latter form. I'm just pointing out that given a bit more voting time, there may well be room for arriving at consensus on more limited statements. From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:55 AM To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13 > > The notes look good, here are some important points that I didn't see in the > notes > > [Section 8] > 1. Motion by Stephen for a vote of "Yes, with comments"; denied by the > Chairman > 2. The names of those who motioned for each of the straw polls > 3. The motion by Stephen for a reconsideration of a vote of "Yes, with > comments"; denied by the Chairman These are meeting minutes, not a transcript of everything that was said. The obligation is to record the time the meeting started and ended, the attendance, the topics discussed and decisions made by the committee. Also, every parliamentary authority that I'm aware of reserves a motion to reconsider to a person who voted on the prevailing side of the vote. The ideas is that it is pointless to vote on an item again unless someone who was on the prevailing side of that vote indicated that they changed their mind. How else could the results change? Since you voted in favor of "yes, with comments", a motion which lost, a motion to reconsider coming from you was out of order. -Rob --Boundary_(ID_HYV7Q4Eepj7vj/L1HZWYbg) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Hi Rob…

 

How can your suggestions to this committee be taken as anything other than efforts to convince this committee to push for the denial of DIS29500 as an International Standard given what you regularly write on your public blog?

 

http://www.robweir.com/blog/

 

The top of your blog has an image that says <NO> OOXML.

 

It sounds like you are just looking for more time to “persuade[d] more committee members to vote “No, with comments”” so that you can help with your publically stated efforts to squash DIS29500 (OOXML), rather than make it a better standard.

 

It is becoming clear to me that anyone who votes “No, with comments” is taking part with you in a mission to do everything in your power to squash DIS29500; rather than taking part in an effort to make recommendation of what is best for the US (which is what this committee has been called to do).

 

Have an awesome day!

 

Cheers,

-Stephen

 

From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:35 PM
To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org
Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13

 


With more than two alternatives no voting system is fair.  This is Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.  The world plays around with Proportional Voting, Single Non Transferable Voting, but this just patches one problem while creating another.  This is the nature of the beast and we need to deal with it.  

But I certainly agree that with more time to review the standard and process more comments, I could have persuaded more committee members to vote "No, with comments".  But the time was simply not there.  I think that should be a greater concern, that we went to a vote with comments that had been submitted but not yet discussed, and that even these comments represent a review of only a small portion of the DIS.  

I'd also note that the members who voted against the No and Abstain positions were predominately those who joined just recently, at one of the last 2 or 3 meetings.  If we were able to give these new members more time to read the DIS and the comments processed by V1, as well as for them to acquaint themselves better with how JTC1 ballots work, I think we could have reached a consensus on the "No" vote.  

So I agree with you in principle that more time would have been preferred, but not just more time for debate, but more time to review and discuss comments as well.

-Rob

___________________________

Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group

email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
phone: 1-978-399-7122
blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/


"Tom Ngo" <Tom.Ngo@nextpage.com>
Sent by: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org

07/14/2007 01:05 PM

Please respond to
incits-v1@incits-v1.org

To

<incits-v1@incits-v1.org>

cc

Subject

RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13

 




I mean this in the most constructive, even-handed way possible:
 
·         I interpret a yes/no vote on “X with Comments” to ask whether the voter considers “X with Comments” to be better than “Y with Comments” or “Z with Comments”, i.e., the best of the three.
·         We never voted on questions like this: given a choice between two alternatives, “X with Comments” and “Y with Comments”, would you prefer “X with Comments”?
 
I am not claiming that Stephen made a motion of the latter form. I’m just pointing out that given a bit more voting time, there may well be room for arriving at consensus on more limited statements.
 
From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com
Sent:
Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:55 AM
To:
incits-v1@incits-v1.org
Subject:
RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13

 


>
> The notes look good, here are some important points that I didn't see in the
> notes
>
> [Section 8]
> 1. Motion by Stephen for a vote of "Yes, with comments"; denied by the
> Chairman
> 2. The names of those who motioned for each of the straw polls
> 3. The motion by Stephen for a reconsideration of a vote of "Yes, with
> comments"; denied by the Chairman



These are meeting minutes, not a transcript of everything that was said.  The obligation is to record the time the meeting started and ended, the attendance, the topics discussed and decisions made by the committee.  


Also, every parliamentary authority that I'm aware of reserves a motion to reconsider to a person who voted on the prevailing side of the vote.  The ideas is that it is pointless to vote on an item again unless someone who was on the prevailing side of that vote indicated that they changed their mind.  How else could the results change? Since you voted in favor of "yes, with comments", a motion which lost, a motion to reconsider coming from you was out of order.


-Rob

--Boundary_(ID_HYV7Q4Eepj7vj/L1HZWYbg)--