From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Sat Jul 14 11:37:10 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:34:52 -0400 From: Stephen Peront Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13 In-reply-to: <6A3672BBE76280419E673DDF65F7EEC816CFAC@rmexchange.realitymobile.local> Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by midtown.nycx.com id l6EIZRp9015263 Content-language: en-us Thread-index: AcfGP3HEjcHrFBY/QpSodvY3Rw3J8AAAH4DAAAFnKDA= X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 Hi Patrick... Yes, thank you for navigating all this (i.e. putting up with all of us) :) Thank you! Cheers, -Stephen -----Original Message----- From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of Dave Rensin Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 2:19 PM To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13 Patrick, Having been part of the SQL-92 process (and others) I can certainly empathize with the impossibly difficult job of having to attempt to maintain an even-handed and civil process given the strong opinions of many of the members. For what it's worth, I think you navigated that problem quite well and were always very careful to keep the conversations civil an orderly. I, for one, very much appreciated that. In that spirit, however, I should like to point out that we actually had no debate on the merits of one position or another. We spent a lot of time debating the meaning of each position vis-à-vis the process, but no actual time debating the merits of a yes/no/abstain vote. I'm not complaining, mind you. The reality of the call seems to have been that most (if not all) of the participants (myself included) had already made up their minds as to what position the committee should take, and so opening an "official" debate on each position prior to the votes probably would have changed no minds. I am disappointed that we couldn't ultimately come to a consensus, but this sometimes happens. I remember well that it took an unusually long time to come to a SQL-92 consensus - so long, in fact, that by the time we finally got a standard through it was pretty well useless as the major database vendors had already made their implementation choices. Do I wish that my firm and others had a clearer set of guidance as we begin to make our implementation choices, absolutely. Life, however, is often not clean that way and we'll make the same "probability of implementation" decisions that other firms will now make. In case no one says it, however, I would like to say "thank you." I've been involved in many similar efforts where the chair made no clear attempt to deal evenly with differing views. Those ultimately dissembled into unproductive rancor and name-calling. Tense, though the call may have been at moments, it never approached that kind of un-civility - do in large measure to your actions. I hope we have an opportunity to work again in the future. -yours warmest, -dave David K. Rensin drensin@realitymobile.com CEO Reality Mobile LLC http://www.realitymobile.com m: (703) 431-7766 -----Original Message----- From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Durusau Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:49 PM To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: Re: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13 Tom, Tom Ngo wrote: > > I mean this in the most constructive, even-handed way possible: > And certainly taken in that spirit. > > · 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. > Well, the lack of time is probably my fault as chair for not ending the debate sooner. But, I was trying to err on the side of giving everyone a full opportunity to express their opinions. If we had a letter ballot, the position is not phrased on the alternative, "would you prefer..." I was going on my prior experience with letter ballots which simply state a position to which a member votes yes, no or abstains. I don't think I have ever seen one in the alternative. I would like to point out that we don't simply have one bite at the apple on our position. We still need to develop a US position on every NB comment that is submitted. Not to mention having to choose and *instruct* our delegation to the BRM. I like your suggestion Tom, does anyone else have experience with alternative voting of that nature? Thinking it may be helpful for the multitude of comments. Although, what I suspect we will need to do on the comments is to setup an electronic forum that allows an authenticated login by each member where they can indicate their position (from some range of positions) on each comment. That would enable us to sort the comments by those that have passed, may pass, may fail and do fail and to use meeting time to quickly confirm the positions on each one. I think we will also need to make use of some online discussion mechanism about those comments so we can accurately track all the comments on comments, ;-) , without wearing Rex's fingers down. Hope you are having a great day! Patrick > *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 > -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Acting Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Co-Editor, OpenDocument Format (OASIS, ISO/IEC 26300)