SUO: Motion to Reconsider the vote on SUMO motion
At 12:06 2001-08-20 +1000, Horn, Graham wrote:
>
> 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.
That is the nature of voting within Robert's Rules. For example, if there are 100 members and vote: 45 Yes, 40 No, and 15 Abstain, then the vote passes ... also passes if the vote is 20 Yes, 10 No, and 70 Abstain (this may be a reaonsable outcome: see vanilla vs. chocolate below). Those who Abstain have the right to Abstain, and also know that Abstaining means that they are not voicing a preference in their (non-)vote <- In case it wasn't clear to anyone, Jim reminded us of the current rules in his E-mail of 2001-07-20 that announced the ballot:
This vote will pass if it receives a majority of YES vs. NO votes. ABSTAINS and non-votes are not counted in determining majority.
I believe this was reasonably clear to all voters.
> . 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 don't understand what you are saying. I don't understand how "extended non-participation leads to explusion". I don't understand what that means.
Yes, there are times when it is reaonsable to Abstain: "Should we choose vanilla or chocolate?". Either are acceptable to me, so I can Abstain. Since I know you participate in other standards activities, I know that you know, too, what Abstain means. It is very reasonable to Abstain ... and many voters explained their reasoning behind their Abstain votes.
> . 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.
The quality "active" is hard to measure, but a majority (Yes vs. No) is easy to measure. The current rules (Robert's) already require a majority (Yes vs. No) for approval of a motion.
> . My second comment is that I think that the current lack of
> consensus indicates that the option presented is not one generating
> cohesion. ...
Again, since I know that you are familiar with standards activities, I know you know that in standards development, there *is* less consensus in the beginning of a standards project than later on when the work is approved <- that is why the standards process is called a "consensus-building process".
Clearly, much more consensus is required for an approved standard <- that's why we "develop" the work (i.e., standards development). I agree that without the requisite consensus, we will have no standard ... it is very important to listen to participants' suggestions and improvements to further build consensus.
FYI, here's a sample set of comments on another standard ... these comments are from the Chair of the US committee as it develops the US position on an ISO/IEC document that is just going through "registration ballot" (roughly equivalent to, just prior to submission to IEEE's sponsor ballot, i.e., formal balloting):
I'd like to remind the committee that the vote for registration is a rather low bar, and concerns itself more with the format of the document than the technical content.
Admittedly, this document is in rough shape: there are notes from the editor scattered about and frequently even the paragraph spacing is inconsistent. I do not say this as a criticism of the people that put this document together after the meeting. A lot of effort was needed to create this first draft.
However, this is WGnn's document, and so the comments of our members will be addressed on these issues. Therefore, I'd like to encourage the following:
1. Review the document and list all of the problems, both in formatting and technical content.
2. Vote "Yes" without comments.
3. Bring your comments to the next meeting, and we will review the document there.
Note that this national committee understands that the document is early on, but is voting Yes ... and Yes without comments ... they expect the comments to be addressed at an upcoming meeting. (I can assure you that this particular standards work is industry-relevant because the technical work will affect 10's to 100's of millions of chips being manufactered/integrated.)
My guess is that the difference between the response above and the SUO WG, is that the above committee has more familiarity/comfortability with the standards process. Also, I'd guess that the SUO WG will increase our familiarity/comfortability with our (IEEE) standards development/process as we continue to do technical work.
> . 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 believe this is a very bad idea: having the committee spend time on "something that doesn't specifically intend to become the final product". Why should we spend time on work that does not intend to help us with the final product? In the past decade, virtually all standards administrators have made it a point to eliminate such non-standards projects from their list of active standards projects. Working on non-standards in a standards committee is not a productive use of time. It is reasonable to work on non-standards, even in IEEE, but if you want to do that you should create a task force (e.g., within IEEE) or something else that is explicitly not standards development.
In this WG, we have a PAR that describes our work and WG participants are working towards that goal. Currently, there are two documents, SUMO (completed ballot) and IFF (currently in ballot), and I'd expect more contributions to further our efforts towards that goal of developing a standard.
> . 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.
Propose some new P&Ps that make for a better process. Here's some tips:
- A good number of people have already given much thought to this, which is our current set of rules.
- It takes 2/3 majority to approve changed P&Ps (as per Robert's Rules).
- There is a SUO P&P committee ... maybe you'd like to submit your P&P suggestions to them to get some feedback.
- The SUO WG as a whole approves changes to P&Ps ... the P&P subcommittee does not approve changes to P&Ps, but may give feedback/advice on them.
> . 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.
The ballot question was:
"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 ..., with the intent of
developing it into the final SUO document? ... 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."
This question says: Do you want to work on this document for developing it (possibly, along with others) into the final SUO document?
I'm not sure what "status" you refer to ... there is no special "status" of the SUMO work, i.e., people should *definitely not* refer to SUMO as the "SUO standard" or anything like that.
The only "status" the document has is that the WG is expected to continue working on it. The document isn't anywhere close to a final standard (nor should it be). In ISO/IEC terms, think of SUMO as an "N"-numbered document that has not yet gone through CD registration. Realisticly, the document(s) will go through at least a dozen major revisions before they are submitted to sponsor ballot (submission for sponsor ballot is somewhat like being at the CD or FCD stage in ISO/IEC). We are still very very early on in the standards development process.
> ...
> . 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.
If these were face-to-face meetings, these votes would be decided much sooner.
> . 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?
Well I'm not intersted in standards projects taking forever. So we wait a month (or even a week) for each procedural step? Yes, that's right ... that's how I spent my (northern hemisphere) summer: June was spent watching someone make a motion, July was spent seconding it, August was for some discussion ... but we had to wait until September because people were on holiday, October was for calling the question, November was for conducting the vote, December was for the motion to reconsider, January was for ... not a lot of work done, right?
Currently, the rules (Robert's) specify a "day" ... the time limits are there to discourage abusing the procedures.
> . This is definitely nonstandard and "fishy".
Check the references in RONR (Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th edition). This is all "straight from the book".
> . 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 agree that the SUMO vote passed with a slim majority and much more consensus is required for a final standard. There will be plenty opportunity to improve upon the work ... remember, the work still requires 75% approval ... that's pretty strong consensus, so I don't think you'll be disappointed in the IEEE process (that is, assuming that you are interested in strong consensus).
-FF
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com
Standards, products, services for the Global Information Infrastructure