From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Thu Aug 16 16:33:24 2007
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_h1o7RTi3ckImKZxZeG/4NA)"
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:31:28 -0400
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: INCITS-V1: Meeting reminder and revised agenda
In-reply-to: <46C4BFE8.1000600@durusau.net>
Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org
To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org
Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on WTFMAIL03/WTF/M/Lotus(Release
6.5.6FP1|April 24, 2007) at 08/16/2007 07:31:29 PM,
Serialize complete at 08/16/2007 07:31:29 PM
X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_h1o7RTi3ckImKZxZeG/4NA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
You have something against Klingons, Patrick?
It sounds like we'll need to rate or score three sets of comments:
1) The consensus processed comments that V1 has already discussed
2) The submitted comments that V1 did not discuss yet
3) The comments submitted with the ballots from other NB's
Actually #3 will be inclusive, so maybe we just target that?
As for how rate or score the comments, we obviously are not going to be
able to discuss all of them, if indeed there are the 1700 or so I'm
hearing estimated.
One way is to handle it like this:
Give each V1 member 100 voting points which they can assign to any
comments they want. Maybe limit it so each member cannot assign more than
5 points to any one comment or some similar rule. Then sum the points
that each comment receives. The comments that receive the highest number
of points represent the ones that V1 feels most strongly about.. Then
based on some threshold we determine which are "must fix."
That avoids the need for discussing each comment in a meeting. We can
just work off a spreadsheet and merge the results together to tally.
Of if that sounds too unconventional, it could be used as a quick
strawpoll way of determining a rough prioritization of the comments, and
then the highest N scoring comments by this procedure are discussed
conventionally to determine the "must fix" ones.
-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/
owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org wrote on 08/16/2007 05:21:44 PM:
> Greetings!
>
> Just another quick reminder of our teleconference tomorrow at 1 PM
> Eastern Standard Daylight Savings Time.
>
> A revised agenda is attached.
>
> Note that I added (and renumbered as appropriate) item 5 which is a
> report by Rex Jaeschke on his delivery of the V1 report at the INCITS
> meeting in San Jose. I was unable to attend and Rex was kind enough to
> "pinch hit" for me as it were. (Sorry, my wife is a baseball fanatic and
> the terminology bleeds over into my prose from time to time.)
>
> Suggestion: I think everyone needs to check their calendars ahead of
> time for September - November since we need to discuss dates for future
> meetings and in particular either full or ad hoc meetings to discuss the
> NB comments on DIS 29500.
>
> In that regard, any suggestions on customary ways to rank how we feel
> about the comments would be useful as well. In other words, if a comment
> says, for example, that specified calendar definitions are missing, we
> might say that is a must fix comment. On the other hand, if a comment
> says that DIS 29500 does not define the Klingon calendar, we could mark
> that one as ignore/don't care and so on. I am thinking that would make
> it easier to provide instructions to delegates to the BRM if we have
> already decided how we feel about the various comments. Not to mention
> that we could then sort them along that ranking, etc.
>
> While re-consideration of a comment is always possible, I would suggest
> that we plan on addressing every comment for ranking once and only once.
> Perhaps even having them prepared in batches and voting on the batch as
> a whole, while allowing any member to pull comments out for further
> discussion. That should help us sort out the ones where there is any
> serious discussion from those that can be agreed upon as a group.
>
> I don't have the return date for a response from V1 on the NB comments
> (which includes our own) but anticipate that we won't have all the way
> to the end of 2007 to complete that phase of our work.
>
> I hope everyone is having a great week!
>
> Patrick
>
> --
> 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)
>
> [attachment "V1-N2007-36 17August2007 Agenda_rev.pdf" deleted by
> Robert Weir/Cambridge/IBM]
--Boundary_(ID_h1o7RTi3ckImKZxZeG/4NA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
You have something against Klingons,
Patrick?
It sounds like we'll need to rate or
score three sets of comments:
1) The consensus processed comments
that V1 has already discussed
2) The submitted comments that V1 did
not discuss yet
3) The comments submitted with the ballots
from other NB's
Actually #3 will be inclusive, so maybe
we just target that?
As for how rate or score the comments,
we obviously are not going to be able to discuss all of them, if indeed
there are the 1700 or so I'm hearing estimated.
One way is to handle it like this:
Give each V1 member 100 voting points
which they can assign to any comments they want. Maybe limit it so
each member cannot assign more than 5 points to any one comment or some
similar rule. Then sum the points that each comment receives. The
comments that receive the highest number of points represent the ones that
V1 feels most strongly about.. Then based on some threshold we determine
which are "must fix."
That avoids the need for discussing
each comment in a meeting. We can just work off a spreadsheet and
merge the results together to tally.
Of if that sounds too unconventional,
it could be used as a quick strawpoll way of determining a rough prioritization
of the comments, and then the highest N scoring comments by this procedure
are discussed conventionally to determine the "must fix" ones.
-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/
owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org wrote on 08/16/2007
05:21:44 PM:
> Greetings!
>
> Just another quick reminder of our teleconference tomorrow at 1 PM
> Eastern Standard Daylight Savings Time.
>
> A revised agenda is attached.
>
> Note that I added (and renumbered as appropriate) item 5 which is
a
> report by Rex Jaeschke on his delivery of the V1 report at the INCITS
> meeting in San Jose. I was unable to attend and Rex was kind enough
to
> "pinch hit" for me as it were. (Sorry, my wife is a baseball
fanatic and
> the terminology bleeds over into my prose from time to time.)
>
> Suggestion: I think everyone needs to check their calendars ahead
of
> time for September - November since we need to discuss dates for future
> meetings and in particular either full or ad hoc meetings to discuss
the
> NB comments on DIS 29500.
>
> In that regard, any suggestions on customary ways to rank how we feel
> about the comments would be useful as well. In other words, if a comment
> says, for example, that specified calendar definitions are missing,
we
> might say that is a must fix comment. On the other hand, if a comment
> says that DIS 29500 does not define the Klingon calendar, we could
mark
> that one as ignore/don't care and so on. I am thinking that would
make
> it easier to provide instructions to delegates to the BRM if we have
> already decided how we feel about the various comments. Not to mention
> that we could then sort them along that ranking, etc.
>
> While re-consideration of a comment is always possible, I would suggest
> that we plan on addressing every comment for ranking once and only
once.
> Perhaps even having them prepared in batches and voting on the batch
as
> a whole, while allowing any member to pull comments out for further
> discussion. That should help us sort out the ones where there is any
> serious discussion from those that can be agreed upon as a group.
>
> I don't have the return date for a response from V1 on the NB comments
> (which includes our own) but anticipate that we won't have all the
way
> to the end of 2007 to complete that phase of our work.
>
> I hope everyone is having a great week!
>
> Patrick
>
> --
> 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)
>
> [attachment "V1-N2007-36 17August2007 Agenda_rev.pdf" deleted
by
> Robert Weir/Cambridge/IBM]
--Boundary_(ID_h1o7RTi3ckImKZxZeG/4NA)--