Re: [rprsg] Welcome to the Terms and Definitions (T&D) Reflector!
John and group,
I'd like to get some opinions on the process of editing the document. My
current plan is to periodically (e.g. once a week) publish two .pdfs, one with
proposed changes highlighted (track changes in Word file) and the other with
proposed changes accepted (to more clearly see what the document would look
like). I am already late with the first revision and will try to get it out as
soon as I can (probably Monday). I can also make the Word file available at
the same time. The periodic publishing allows the group to agree on one
complete set of updates before considering the next. It avoids the version
confusion that might occur if I published the document after each day's
changes. I could also publish more frequent updates if people think that's
useful.
It might be efficient to split the document among a small number of T&D
committee members. More than three segments would be difficult since
coordination is required for periodic merges and for decisions regarding the
section into which a new term is placed (we can see how this goes after an
initial division). If you would like to volunteer for this, please send me
email directly with the section names for which you would like to be
responsible. I'll see if I can coordinate a reasonable division.
We also need a method to poll for definition preferences. One suggestion is
to poll on one topic (document section) at a time. The owner of a section
(assuming we divide the document) could act as moderator and solicit
alternative definitions (in addition to alternatives already included in the
document) for terms in the section and the alternative would be discussed on
the T&D reflector. After a short period of discussion, the moderator could
send email on the T&D reflector with the list of terms and the alternative
definitions for the topic (or we could republish the document with all the
alternatives for the topic). People could vote by sending a response directly
to the moderator rather than to the reflector, and the moderator would report
the results to the reflector. In cases where no alternative for a term gets a
majority, there would be a revote with the least popular alternative
eliminated, repeated until an alternative gets a majority (ie. Australian
ballot).
None of the polling would be binding, and polling on terms could be repeated as
necessary to maintain consensus. The objective is to publish a document to the
Webpage on which there is reasonable agreement within the T&D group so we can
work towards agreement within the WG at large.
Please send your suggestions, comments, etc. and I will try to get this going
as quickly as possible.
Thanks, Bob
John Lemon wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Clearly you won't really be tracking changes in this PDF file, but in some
> Word file instead, yes? Can you post post the Word file someplace where we
> all can reach it and keep it actively up to date?
>
> jl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Sultan [mailto:Bob.Sultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 7:33 AM
> To: stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [rprsg] Welcome to the Terms and Definitions (T&D) Reflector!
>
> Welcome to the Terms and Definitions (T&D) Reflector!
>
> As discussed in the May meeting, the objective of the T&D Ad Hoc
> Committee is to prepare a T&D draft for vote at the Portland Plenary.
> Ideally, there should be sufficient discussion within the T&D Ad Hoc and
> within the Working Group (after posting a draft) that it will not be
> necessary to vote on each individual term at the meeting.
>
> The most recent T&D draft is now posted with the May presentations at
> http://www.ieee802.org/rprsg/public/presentations/may2001/bs_defs_01.pdf
> I will 'track changes' on future versions, and 'accept changes' when
> there is concensus on a particular term. I will soon have the IEEE
> Dictionary and will post those definitions as soon as possible. Where
> alternative definitions are proposed, I will clearly indicate the
> alternatives so people can provide their opinions.
>
> Please post your proposed modifications and additions to the reflector
> stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx For convenience, we are using the reflector
> that was used for the RPR Study Group. Only those people who indicated
> interest in the T&D Committee are now subscribed to this reflector.
> Please also post suggestions for the process of editing the T&D
> document, discussing issues, etc.
>
> My own suggestion for the process is that postings suggesting the
> modification of a definition state the original definition, the proposed
> modified definition, and arguments for the change. Postings supporting
> a definition in the document should state the definition and the
> arguments in favor of that definition. I will periodically poll to
> determine which definitions can be safely accepted.
>
> Bob