From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Thu Aug 16 16:49:44 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:46:26 -0400 From: Patrick Durusau Subject: Re: INCITS-V1: Meeting reminder and revised agenda In-reply-to: Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1187307990-211200170000-E618Iy X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.10.100.8:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi X-Barracuda-Connect: unknown[66.110.197.207] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1187307990 X-ASG-Whitelist: Client X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: INCITS-V1: Meeting reminder and revised agenda X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at insimail.com Rob, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote: > > 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? > I would suggest just targeting the master set of all comments, yes. > 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's an interesting suggestion. Assuming that everyone uses all 100 points it would just about cover all the comments. I'm afraid that there would be some orphan comments that get no points but I guess that would just be the breaks. Comments? Other suggestions? Hope you are having a great day! Patrick > 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] -- 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)