SUO: RE: RE: Motion to Reconsider the vote on SUMO motion
Jim,
. I have three comments in view of the contentious way things
are turning out at present.
. First I feel the carrying of a motion where clearly less
than half the participants actively support it strikes me as faulty. I
propose that the voting system change so this dose not occur.
. In particular, I have the impression that a number of people
very deliberately abstained, making their contributions very different to
non-participating in the ballot. Furthermore, You treat non-participation
differently under our current rules, in that extended non-participation
leads to expulsion.
. I suggest that the current handling of abstain should be
limited to nonparticipation. I suggest that to carry a motion needs active
support by a majority.
. My second comment is that I think that the current lack of
consensus indicates that the option presented is not one generating
cohesion. This is a bit like a referendum we had in Australia a while back
for the country to become a republic. The form of republic offered by the
referendum, which was quite specific, was so unpalatable that, even though
opinion polls generally show that most of the voters want a republic, the
referendum failed. There are now proposals for a repeat referendum, opening
up the range of options for what sort of republic, to redress this.
. I suggest that we similarly need an option for a form of
document status that generates consensus and cohesion rather than dissent
and division. I believe that pushing the current minority motion through is
defective process. I suggest that support for something that doesn't
specifically intend to become the final product will gain far wider support,
and should be what is decided at this stage.
. I accordingly suggest we have a new ballot
* with new rules that avoid the decision being carried by a minority
of participants, and
* with and end point option that omits the characteristic that is
clearly causing the division within the group.
. I suggest it is too early to commit to the form of status
offered in the previous vote, and this is the reason for its very equivocal
support.
. I suggest we will make more progress if we are united than
divided as at present.
. Third, I feel the process discussed below gives far too
little time for participants to reasonably receive and consider options,
especially in an international forum functioning as a part time activity. I
suggest a week at the very least should be allowed in such circumstances. In
fact, allowing for people having holidays, a month would be far more
appropriate.
. Anyway, what's the hurry? What is so critical in such a long
term (years) project that it matters that things be decided in a day rather
than a week or month?
. This is definitely nonstandard and "fishy".
. The drive to push through an option with so little support
makes me feel something clearly isn't right. The very closeness of the vote
should be cause for reconsideration at the earliest opportunity anyway, even
if one disregards any impact of abstentions.
. I put it to you we should be seeking a way ahead that has
broad support. Furthermore, I put it to you such a way is apparently readily
achievable.
Cheers Graham Horn
National Data Standards Unit
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
================================================
Phone: 02.6244.1094
Fax: 02.6244.1199
Email: Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au <mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
-----Original Message-----
From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
[mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, 20 August 2001 7:42
To: 'Robert Grayson Spillers '; ''Standard-Upper-Ontology ' '
Subject: SUO: RE: Motion to Reconsider the vote on SUMO motion
Bob,
Regarding your parliamentary inquiry, "Is the SUO an assembly or a
standing committee?": Standing Committees are formed by Assemblies to handle
certain matters (such as how the SUO P&P Subgroup was formed by SUO to
handle P&Ps). SUO was chartered by IEEE CS SAB, but not to serve any of
its particular needs. The SUO group originally formed itself and applied to
SAB for the charter (the PAR). SUO established its own scope and purpose,
voting membership rules, and acts very as an Assembly. In response to your
inquiry, SUO is an Assembly.
As such, your motion cannot be acted upon for two reasons:
a. You originally voted NO. Such a motion would need to be
made by a voter from the prevailing side.
b. The SUMO vote was announced on 16 Aug, so the deadline
for a 'motion to reconsider' was 17 Aug. Your motion was made on 18 Aug.
Jim Schoening
SUO Chair
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Grayson Spillers
To: 'Standard-Upper-Ontology '
Sent: 8/18/01 12:07 AM
Subject: SUO: Motion to Reconsider the vote on SUMO motion
Jim,
I move to reconsider the vote on the SUMO motion.
Bob