SUO: Re: Violation of Process
Jim Schoening wrote:
>
> 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
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 10:31 PM
> To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subj: 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
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 8:18 PM
> To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subj: 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
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Jim,
I try to maintain my sense of humor.
Do have I have to start referring
to this "Merged Ontology" as the
"Daimler-Chrysler Merger Ontology"?
If there is anything that is abundantly evident from the
abundance of discussion that we have here, it is the lack
of interest that most participants have in this putative MO.
As long as the officiators of this process respect the sense
of the group concerns and their collectively recognized results,
then nobody has to worry about procedural monkey-business and the
risk of having the semblance of their sacred honor being railroaded.
Do you really feel like you are achieving the aim of this spirit with
these sorts of actions, in effect, laying down the letter of the law,
even the letter of which, by the way, seems to be a matter of dispute?
I think it is pretty obvious that no one wants to act in any way that
would block Ian's personal inquiry, or his company's development of
their products, but is it really fair to exploit the good will of
others against their own several interests? Do we really want
to send this craft into ontology space with this much vaseline
on its lenses and mirrors, with its current merger of english
and metric units kludged into its design, and with a panoply
of o-rings that have not been tested at this temperature,
just to beat some corporate-political deadline?
Respectfully Inquired,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤