ABSTAIN > Re: SUO: FW: SUO E-mail Ballot -- Please Acknowledge receipt
i acknowledge receipt of the ballot. I vote "ABSTAIN".
john-josef costandi
DOD
=======================================
"Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I" wrote:
> All SUO Subscribers,
>
> The following ballot was sent directly to SUO voting members;
> however, all subscribers to this list 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