SUO: RE: Violation of process
Robert,
. I think there is a general principle that applies here.
Basically, any chairperson, convenor, etc. of a group does not have absolute
power. If there is a dispute, and the chair is voted down by the majority of
the group, then recourse is required to measures to restore order. The chair
has to either accept the group's majority opinion, or refer the matter to
the sponsoring organisation if the sponsoring organisation powers in this
regard. The sponsoring organisation does not always have that power, often
depending on the history of the development of the group, but I would
suspect IEEE does in this case since we accepted their coverage by a
substantial majority, and have not voted to resile from that situation.
. In this case I don't particularly recall any requirement for
unanimity or "general consent" in the way defined below. There is currently,
apparently, considerable acceptance of Jim's approach, tho' that could
change.
. There is currently a dispute, but the chair has not yet been
voted down on it. In order to get your view heard you need to get half the
group to visibly state they support your position. You have stated your
position, and we can consider it, and respond as we see fit. Personally, I
don't see a the extent of objection to date as significant, but perhaps a
majority of other members will support your view. If that doesn't happen,
then the group is telling you by their action or lack of it that they accept
Jim's decision.
. I await developments of you perspective with baited breath.
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: Monday, March 26, 2001 1:31 PM
To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject: SUO: Violation of process
All,
There is a simple but important principle here. Is this Working Group
governed by open and democratic processes or not? The chair asked for
general consent. He did not receive it. No legitimate action may be taken by
the chair on this issue. He has no authority to make this appointment; it is
not an official action of this Working Group. (I have previously stated that
I have no objection to taking the same action informally.)
Robert's Rules of Order are clear on this point.
Article VIII - Vote, Section 48 Motions requiring more than a
Majority Vote
General Consent or Unanimous Vote. ...(last sentence of the
paragraph) One negative vote defeats a motion to make a vote unanimous, as a
single objection defeats a request for general consent. (emphasis added)
In private communications to me, Jim has asserted that he has broad power to
do what he thinks best, does not recognize my objection to this action and
is not bound by Robert's Rules. One may agree or disagree with my objection,
but is was timely and clearly stated (however, the simple assertion "I
object" is sufficient). In another circumstance Jim has asserted that since
there were only two objections, those were not enough. He seems to think
that he has the right to determine if objections meet his own (unstated)
test of reasonableness and how many objections are enough. .
Why is "formal or official" action objectionable when "informal or
unofficial" action is not?
It gives the Teknowledge Merged Ontology a privileged ("official") status
that other ontologies do not enjoy. (No, I do not have another ontology that
I plan to offer anytime soon - perhaps never.) There is a simple compromise
that will resolve this issue: Declare the Teknowledge Merged Ontology to be
one of the documents being worked own by the Working Group (and Ian its
editor). Any member may post other documents to the list of documents being
worked on by this WG. The member who posts the document will be
presumptively the editor or may name one by general consent of the WG.
Objections will be resolved by a vote. All documents will be posted in the
same place and enjoy the same status. None will have precedence over others.
If the chair does not act to resolve this issue, I will make a formal motion
that incorporates the process outlined above. This will require a vote.
Bob
"Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I" wrote:
All,
As Ian Niles is the only volunteer for the position of Technical
Editor for the Merged Ontology document, and as there is only one
objection
to his selection (from Bob Spillers), Ian Niles is hereby selected
for this
position.
Jim Schoening
-----Original Message-----
From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
[mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil
<mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil> ]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 8:18 PM
To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject: SUO: Technical Editor for Merged Ontology
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