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

Re: SUO: Technical Editor for Merged Ontology




Graham,
My objection is not to the person (Ian Niles).  I state this in the first
sentence of my note.  Perhaps closer attention to my note will clarify my
objections.

Bob




"Horn, Graham" wrote:

> 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
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