From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Sat Jul 14 11:05:17 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:02:07 -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: AcfGPUFGWgN9n49OS5aGSQLR1aYPXAAAMj36AABwrWA= X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 Hi Rob... Chiming in with Doug here... While I cannot speak for what others have done; I think I am correct in taking claim that I have personally read through and implemented more of this spec than any other member of this committee (all due respect to anyone that can prove otherwise). After reviewing most of your comments; many are incorrect and come from a misunderstanding of the spec and had you tried to actually implement it, you would understand the text better. Given that you have limited mindset into the spec, and in the interest of trying to compromise for the sake of building consensus, I have entertained many of your comments knowing that they are sometimes wrong. I also expected that you, and others, would have seen that and come a little this way and be willing to compromise as to the wording of our recommendation. However, once again, given your publically stated mission. It is hard for me to understand how anyone can take any of the comments you have made as anything other than part of your mission to squash DIS29500. Which is unfortunate since some of your comments do add value to the spec. Have an awesome day! Cheers, -Stephen -----Original Message----- From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of Doug Mahugh Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:40 PM To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13 > 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. Rob, I have a hard time following the logic you're using here. Why should we try to build consensus for the LEAST popular of the three options we voted on? That seems to fly in the face of common sense, if our goal is truly to build a position that represents the consensus of the members. > 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. I see this differently. The new members include people who have actually implemented portions of DIS 29500, and to my knowledge none of the longstanding V1 members have done so. So to suggest that those who work with DIS 29500 daily need to read it more closely so that they'll convert to the position of those who have never implemented any portion of DIS 29500 is also a position I have a hard time following. Regards, Doug ________________________________ From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com [robert_weir@us.ibm.com] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:34 AM 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