SUO: Re: Copy of SUO ballot
Hi all,
As a non-voting participant I find that Ian's project is
completely interesting. It seems to me that since a little while a number
of new elements were introduced which seem to me very relevant.
I also think that the methodological aspects are very important, because
persons of different horizons can have a consensus at this level
independently of their theoretical frame. However it is necessary to watch
not to be confined to a too reducing methodology - as maybe some tend to do
it because it is easier - And so I think that this methodology should be
questioned and elaborated theoreticaly, and then translated in other
theoretical frames.
Josiane Caron-Pargue
At 12:08 20/07/01 -0400, vous avez écrit:
>All SUO Subscribers,
>
> The following is a copy of a ballot sent directly to SUO voting
>members; however, all SUO list subscribers and participants are welcome to
>express their opinions and submit comments.
>
>Jim Schoening
>
>================================================
>
>ATTN Voting Members of SUO WG,
>
>1. Please immediately acknowledge receipt of this email letter ballot. If I
>do not receive within 3-days, I will contact you again. We want to make
>sure all voting members receive this ballot. The wording of this ballot was
>developed and reviewed by the SUO Policies & Procedures Subgroup.
>
>2. This message is to Ballot the question :
>
> "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
>commence work on the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) version 1.15
>[June 22, 2001] posted at http://suo.ieee.org/Merge.txt, with the intent of
>developing it into the final SUO document?
> Note 1: See background information below for more details.
> Note 2: This may be one of several candidate documents to be
>combined and aligned into the final SUO document via the consensus building
>process."
>
>3. By 15 Aug '01, please vote YES (comments optional), NO (comments
>required), or ABSTAIN (comments optional). Please send your votes and
>comments directly to me, but you are also free to post to the SUO list and
>openly discuss this topic.
>
>4. This vote will pass if it receives a majority of YES vs. NO votes.
>ABSTAINS and non-votes are not counted in determining majority. The Chair
>may vote to make or break a tie. As all voting members will have received
>and acknowledge receipt of this ballot and will therefore have an
>opportunity to vote, there will be no quorum of votes required for this
>motion to be determined.
>
>5. Non-voting participants are welcome to express opinions and submit
>comments.
>
>6. Background:
>
> a. The purpose of this vote is to determine the level of consensus
>we have for focusing work on this document. In other words, we need to
>decide if we are going to go down this path or not. A working group may
>decide to work on more than one document.
>
> b. The primary purpose of this vote is NOT to propose improvements
>to the document, unless they are major enough for you to vote against
>focusing work on this document. However, such general improvement comments
>are welcome and will be resolved (but not unless and until the vote passes,
>since there would be no sense resolving comments if the group does not want
>to proceed
>with this document.
>
> c. If this vote passes, this document will change from being the
>work (and under the control) of a group of individuals to being the work
>(and under the control) of the SUO WG. A Technical Editor will be appointed
>or elected, who will incorporate WG-approved changes into the document.
>This does not require frequent formal votes for every change. A better
>approach
>for daily or weekly updates is to develop consensus by resolving objections,
>as we did
>when revising the Scope and Purpose. In other words, (1) the Technical
>Editor leads the discussion by processing the issues and suggestions; (2)the
>issues/suggestions identify proposed additions, changes, or deletions to the
>wording in the document; (3) the Technical Editor asks the WG for any
>objections. Items that do not have clear consensus would be accumulated for
>later, more formal processing, i.e., the proposer of the issue/suggestion is
>responsible for making a formal proposal (with a WG vote) for the proposed
>change.
>
>Jim Schoening
>Chair, SUO WG