Re: SUO: Technical Editor for Merged Ontology
Dear Robert,
. Below, you were previously objecting to the document
being developed.
. Now you seem to be objecting to the person.
. Do you have any grounds to objecting to the person?
. Since Ian is the ONLY person volunteering, what alternative
do you suggest regarding selection of a technical editor?
. Does anyone else have any alternative positive suggestions?
Cheers Graham Horn
National Data Standards Unit
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
================================================
Phone: 02.6244.1094
Fax: 02.6244.1199
Email: Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au <mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Grayson Spillers [mailto:skydog@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 9:32 AM
To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject: 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