> On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Miller,Eric wrote:
>
> > While I feel we've made significant steps toward
> harmonizing the individual
> > deliverables of each working group, based on the recent
> responses my guess
> > is that we're going to have to make one more integration
> effort after the
> > voting process is complete.
>
> No, surely not! Please. We must know exactly what we are
> voting for or
> against - things should *not* be changed after the vote.
> Stu's recently
> posted note on process didn't seem to allow for things to be
> changed after
> the vote.
I understand what both you (and Stu) are saying... And frankly I hope this
is the case. There are just a set of issues that haven't been addressed
that I think will be more clear after the vote is complete.
A simple example of this is 'Object' as a type of Agent. I understand the
concept, but it seems to me that 'Instrument' is a much better label. If
the previous balloting taught us anything its that the 'comment' portion of
the ballot is a much better tool for tracking individual positions than
email. If these positions suggest an alteration (definition or label name)
to a concept or help define relationships among other concepts, then what?
We ignore this in the final document?
I'm not advocating that we should be changing anything after the vote is
complete... I'm just saying I'm not sure how realistic this position
actually will be.
eric
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|