RE: SUO: Proposed Conclusions and Actions from Vote
Bob,
I should have more accurately stated the IEEE default rules for WG
voting are Robert's Rules of Order. I don't have a full version handy, but I
found a summary on the web at
http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~philo/roberts-rules/motions.html that states, "A
main motion requires a majority vote except in special cases described by
Robert's Rules, such as modifying a By-Law or suspending a rule."
Below is the order of precedence for Policies and Procedures from
our parent org (SAB) Policies and Procedures at
http://www.computer.org/standards/ORIENT/p&ptoc.htm.
2.0 PRECEDENCE
In the event of inconsistencies between two or more of the above documents,
the document with higher precedence (indicated by earlier appearance on the
following list) shall take precedence: [IEEE Standards Association
procedures are available at: http://standards.ieee.org/sitemap.html ]
* IEEE Bylaws
* IEEE Standards Association Bylaws
* IEEE Standards Association Operations Manual
* IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws
* IEEE Policies and Procedures Manual, Section 8
* IEEE Board of Directors Resolutions
* IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual
* IEEE CS Constitution and Bylaws
* IEEE CS Policies and Procedures, Section 11
* IEEE CS Board of Governors Resolutions
* IEEE CS SAB P&P (this document)
* Robert's Rules of Order
* Sponsor Policies and Procedures
* Working Group or Study Group Policies and Procedures
At present, we have not yet established our own WG Policies and
Procedures, except for the one clause we just approved for establishing
voting rights.
Many WGs have their own Sponsor group, but our Sponsor is the IEEE
Computer Society Standards Activity Board. If we were to spawn several
additional PARs, we would likely form s Sponsor made up of the Chairs of
each WG.
Jim Schoening
-----Original Message-----
From: skydog@pacbell.net [mailto:skydog@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 10:23 PM
To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
Cc: 'Standard-Upper-Ontology '
Subject: Re: SUO: Proposed Conclusions and Actions from Vote
Jim,
It seems to me that we were told there were no IEEE rules for voting in a
working group. Could you give me a pointer to the documentation for this
(default) rule mentioned in your Observations (1) below.
Bob
"Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I" wrote:
> SUO,
>
> Final vote results on Merged Ontology (see ballot question below)
> are:
>
> YES = 11
> NO = 9
> ABSTAIN = 4
>
> YES votes were from: John Thompson, Adam Pease, John Velman,
Graham
> Horn, Roberto Bordogna, Ian Niles, Douglas McDavid, John Sowa, Fredrick
> Chase, Frank Farance, Jay Halcomb.
>
> NO votes were from: Matthew West, Chris Partridge, Robert Kent,
> Stefano Borgo, John Dickert, Francis McCabe, Lee Auspitz, Bob Spillers,
> Chris Angus.
>
> ABSTAINs were from: Pat Hayes, Michael Uschold, Sofia Pinto,
Nicola
> Guarino
>
> Please correct me if I have tabulated your vote incorrectly.
>
> Observations:
>
> 1. The IEEE default voting rule within a working group is a simple
majority
> of YES vs. NO votes, with ABSTAINs not included in determining majority.
>
> 2. This vote was presented as an unofficial straw poll, because we are
> currently establishing the list of official voters.
>
> 3. We previously established considerable opposition to calling the Merged
> Ontology a "Base Document," and have since modified the question to remove
> this label.
>
> 4. All comments that were directly related to the question have been
posted,
> and received much discussion. Some votes did change as a result of
> discussion and are reflected in the above results. Those comments that
> related to improving the document were not to be addressed until and
unless
> the group decided to work on this document. This is the way ballot
> resolution works. We try to improve documents and build consensus by
> resolving comments.
>
> 5. This is a very early-on vote in the development of the proposed
document.
> It will eventually need to gain 75% approval from the final balloting
group.
>
> Proposed Conclusions:
>
> 1. A simple majority voted YES to the question (copy below), therefore,
this
> vote has passed, but by a recognized thin margin.
>
> 2. Aside from the thin approval margin, the group appears to have rather
> strong consensus that work should proceed on the Merged Ontology. This
> comes even from many of those who voted NO, who did so for the reasons in
> the posted comments.
>
> Proposed Actions resulting from above:
>
> Step 1: Post link to Merged Ontology on SUO web site at
http://suo.ieee.org.
> as follows:
>
> Documents under development by this working group:
> 1. Merged Ontology <link address>
>
> Step 2: Select a Technical Editor for Merged Ontology document, to be
> accomplished by issuing a 'Call for volunteers' followed by an open and
fair
> selection process.
>
> Step 3: Place Merged Ontology Document under control of SUO WG, requiring
> Technical Editor to gain approval from group before making changes. This
> would be mostly via an informal consensus process, but would also include
> formal votes (with comment resolution) every 3-6 months.
>
> Step 4: Technical Editor will resolve all comments from the previous vote
> that dealt with improvements to Merged Ontology. Additional comments will
> also be solicited.
>
> Are there any objections to these Observations, Proposed
> Conclusions, or Proposed Actions?
>
> Jim Schoening
> Chair, SUO WG
>
> ===============================
> The completed call for vote follows:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> [mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 7:03 AM
> To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: SUO: Revised Call for Vote on Merged Ontology
>
> SUO Participants,
>
> 1. Since the prior vote had a variety of problems, it is amended as
follows
> to focus on the key question.
>
> 2. If you have already cast a vote (and received acknowledgement) you
don't
> need to vote again, unless you wish to change your vote or comments.
> However, this is an open list and all are welcome to post or repost their
> opinions.
>
> 3. This message is a call for a vote on the question:
>
> Should the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
> commence work on the Merged Ontology as posted by
> Ian Niles with the intent of attempting to develop
> it into a final standards document?
>
> 4. Background: If this vote passes, this document will change from being
> the work (and under the control) of a group of individuals to being the
work
> (and under the control) of the SUO WG. A Technical Editor will need to be
> appointed or elected, who will need group approval before making changes.
> This does not require frequent formal votes for every change. A better
> approach for daily or weekly updates is to develop consensus by resolving
> objections, as we did when revising the Scope and Purpose. In other
words,
> the editor posts a suggested change and asks for any objections. Items
that
> do not have clear consensus would be accumulated. Then, every 3-6 months
> the group could have a formal vote on what would be the next 'Working
> Draft.' Comments would be submitted and resolved before approval as the
next
> Working Draft.
>
> 5. The purpose of this vote is to determine the level of consensus we have
> for focusing work on this document. In other words, we need to decide if
we
> are going to go down this path or not. A working group may decide to work
> on more than one document, so anyone else is free to submit one.
>
> 6. The primary purpose of this vote is NOT to propose improvements to the
> document, unless they are major enough for you to vote against focusing
work
> on this document. However, such general improvement comments are welcome
> and will be resolved (but not unless and until the vote passes. There
would
> be no sense in resolving comments if the group does not want to proceed
with
> this document.).
>
> 7. Since we are still in the process of establishing official voting
rights,
> I suggest we first conduct this as an unofficial straw poll, such that
> anyone can cast a vote. After resolving all comments, if consensus is not
> clear, we will have the option of conducting a formal vote (once voting
> rights are established).
>
> 8. Your options for voting are YES (comments optional), NO (comments
> required), or ABSTAIN (comments optional).
>
> 9. You may send your votes either to me or to this reflector.
>
> 10. Please vote by Feb 1, 2001.
>
> Jim Schoening
> Chair, SUO WG