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

SUO: RE: Violation of process

Bob,
   
    I have sought, received, and acted upon guidance from our next higher body.  If you disagree, you are free to appeal these actions up the chain.  There is nothing more we can resolve at this level.  There is no possible way this group can conduct an email ballot for every action.  There is no reason to do so when only a very small number of people object to a given action. 
 
Jim Schoening
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Grayson Spillers [mailto:skydog@pacbell.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 10:31 PM
To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject: 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]
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