RE: SUO: Technical Editor for Merged Ontology
Robert,
. All your objections below seem to be either:
* against the "Merged Ontology"; or
* about voting rules.
. What I don't see is what your objection to formal acceptance
to Ian's formal selection as tech editor. In other words, why WOULD you vote
formally against him having that role - regardless of which document is
being produced - other than you are unhappy with the way the voting was
initiated?
. Have you ever had this sort of editing role yourself? I have
in so far as I am doing the actual editing work on ISO 11179-3 for metadata
registries. I really can't see the problem with someone like Ian taking on
the role.
The worst that can happen (and this happened to me) is that the
editor can misinterpret the instructions, of the group, and that has to be
corrected in the next iteration of the document. Actually, such problems
often result in everyone thinking further laterally about the issues, and
making more fundamental improvements to the conceptual basis of the work,
resulting in a more advanced standard. It looks like this is about to happen
with the next round of 11179-3 in the near future.
Cheers Graham Horn
National Data Standards Unit
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
================================================
Phone: +61.2.6244.1094
Fax: +61.2.6244.1199
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 5:59 PM
To: Horn, Graham
Cc: 'Robert Grayson Spillers'; Schoening CECOM DCSC4I James (E-mail);
Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject: Re: SUO: Technical Editor for Merged Ontology
<< File: Card for Robert Grayson Spillers >>
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