Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: SUO: Technical Editor for Merged Ontology

I have no objection to Ian serving as editor of the  merged ontology as long as this is done informally.
If this is characterized as a formal role, I object on the basis previously stated.
 
Robert Spillers wrote on 03/01/2001
Jim,

I do not agree with many (probably most) of the statements in your note of 03/01/2001.  Perhaps a more productive approach would be see what we can agree on.

1)  I think we both agree that no official vote has been taken.

2)  Consensus is desirable in a WG.

3)  Your proposed conclusions and actions do not proceed from a official vote (i.e. no vote was taken).

Since there has been no vote, in order to adopt your proposed actions you must seek unanimous consent (or make a motion for a vote).  In fact your announcement did ask if there were any objections.  By Robert's Rules, a single objection defeats a request for unanimous consent.

Let me propose a comprise.  Take the actions you proposed, but do it informally  - just don't characterize1 them as official actions of the WG.  If others have ontologies they wish to post and request the assistance of the WG to refine/develop them, allow them to do so - informally and without the necessity of a vote.

Over time, a natural consensus will develop.  Some postings will receive much more attention, revision, critiques than others.  When it is clear that a large majority favors a particular approach, then it is time for a vote to formalize this consensus.  I suspect this will take more than a year.

Bob

1 A statement should accompany the posting saying that all are unofficial documents and none have precedence over others.
 

As I said of your proposed conclusions and actions, there are two ways to make actions official

1)   some one makes a motion, some one else seconds the motion, a vote is held and the motions passes
2)   by unanimous consent (technically general consent).

No motion has been made ; no vote has been taken and I have objected which defeats general consent2 

The vote on the merged ontology was not official and no official actions can be derived from it.  I do not object to informal actions regarding the merged ontology or its editor.  Formal actions that give status to one document over others must be formally taken and none of the actions you have taken are correct by Robert's Rules - the official standard for procedure.
 

Bob
 
2  Robert's Rules of Order Article VII - Vote, Section 48 - Motions requiring more than a Majority Vote

"Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I" wrote:

SUO,

        Ian Niles is the only person to volunteer to serve as Technical
Editor for the Merged Ontology. (Anyone surprised?)   Are there any
objections to him serving in this position?

Jim Schoening

begin:vcard 
n:Spillers;Robert Grayson 
tel;work:650-851-1135
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Spillers Consulting
adr:;;136 Bardet Road ;Woodside;California;94062;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:skydog@pacbell.net
fn:Robert Grayson Spillers
end:vcard