SUO: RE: Conclusion of Vote and Call for Volunteers for Technical Editor
Hi Jim,
I hereby volunteer for the role of Technical Editor of the Merged
Ontology document.
-Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> [mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 7:11 PM
> To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: SUO: Conclusion of Vote and Call for Volunteers for Technical
> Editor
>
>
>
> SUO:
>
> As there have been no objections to the below proposed
> conclusions
> and proposed actions, they are considered adopted.
> Congratulations, Ian,
> Adam, and all those who have contributed to the Merged Ontology.
>
> We now need to select a Technical Editor for this
> document, via an
> open and fair process. I would now like to issue a 'Call
> for Volunteers'
> for the position of Technical Editor of the Merged Ontology document.
> Please respond to me and/or this list by Feb 23rd, or if this
> is not enough
> time, ask for an extension.
>
> Jim Schoening
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> [mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 6:53 PM
> To: 'Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)'
> Subject: SUO: Proposed Conclusions and Actions from Vote
>
>
> 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
>
>