RE: SUO: RE: Motion to Reconsider the vote on SUMO motion
Graham,
Replies below:
At 03:02 PM 8/22/2001 +1000, Horn, Graham wrote:
>Dear Adam,
> . Further comments interspersed below, prefaced "GH2>
>".
>
> . By the way, let me repeat and emphasise that, like John, I
>believe that a lot of good work has been done. I am totally in favour of the
>work continuing because of what we are all learning from it.
>
> . My concern remains the likelihood that the final product
>will have a structure we haven't decided on (and possibly haven't thought
>of) yet, and that it's premature to pretend otherwise.
>
>
>
>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: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, 22 August 2001 5:18
>To: Horn, Graham; 'Frank Farance'
>Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
>Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Motion to Reconsider the vote on SUMO motion
>
>
>Graham,
> Comments below:
>
>At 02:02 PM 8/21/2001 +1000, Horn, Graham wrote:
>
> >Hi Frank,
> > . Further comments interspersed below, prefaced "GH====> ".
> >
><snip>
></snip>
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Frank Farance [mailto:frank@farance.com]
> >Sent: Monday, 20 August 2001 14:54
> >To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> >Subject: 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.
> >
><snip>
></snip>
> >
> >GH====> For example, how often does one abstain when one was very nearly
> >about to vote YES? I suggest most of the time people abstain because they
> >are just short of voting NO.
>
>I can't speak about other posters, but my abstention on IFF is exactly
>that, not a yes or a no. There are balanced reasons on both sides which
>prevent either vote.
>
>GH2> Well, you've got a good point. I admit I hadn't realised you voted
>that way, and that also reduces my concerns about financial interests below.
>
>
> >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.
> >
> >GH====> Clearly, I don't believe that has been the type of abstention we
> >have been having here.
>
>I don't think this is clear at all. People have the option of writing
>comments with their votes to clarify.
>
>GH2>` Its true I don't feel abstentions make up a neat aspect of voting on
>such issues, and naturally that's why not all groups handle them the same
>way. What we really need is a multivalue option, varying from strongly
>support to strongly oppose with corresponding numerical values, but I'm
>being very radical to propose that questionnaire style to voting.
>
> > > . 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.
> >
> >GH====> I believe that the concerns expressed in this work are such that
> >that is not yet happening here. Don't get me wrong. If the majority were
> >greater I wouldn't be expressing my concern. I admit the fact that there
> >seem to be financial interests binding a significant portion of voters, all
> >of whose votes are being recorded individually, makes me concerned that the
> >true support for the project's technical merits may be even weaker than it
> >appears. You can't deny that the concerns about the proposal are mainly
> >technical.
>
>Well, I can deny it. I think we have a range of opinions. Some people like
>Nicola and Pat have expressed both detailed technical concerns as well as
>more general methodological or philosophical ones. Although Bob Spillers
>disagrees with me on this, I believe his objections (at least as stated in
>this forum) have not been technical ones.
>
>GH2> OK, I guess it comes down to opinions, then.
>
>In fact, I believe that a number of people just don't support the existing
>PAR and so wouldn't support any proposal that attempted to address the
>actual charter of this group. Maybe that is a technical concern, but not
>one that is within the possible scope of the effort.
>
>GH2> As you should know, that is NOT my reason for the current vote, but
>rather the matter of (lack of a reasonably developed) vision put forward by
>John Sowa.
>
> ><snip>
> ></snip>
> >
> > > . 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.
> >
> >GH====> My belief is that that is what participants would be far happier
> >supporting at present. Once robustness is demonstrated, then the current
> >ballot question will attract far more support, but clearly that doesn't
> >apply at present.
> >
> >GH====> I believe progress is faster when cohesion stirs enthusiasm, but
> >that division hampers this.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >GH====> Fyi, the grounds for my negative votes apply equally to both
> >proposals. They were the reasons advanced by John Sowa, following the face
> >to face meeting at the recent conference.
> >
> > > . 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.
> >
><snip>
></snip>
> >
> > > . 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."
> >
><snip>
></snip>
> > > ...
> > > . 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.
> >
> >GH====> Yes, but this process means numbers of people will miss out on the
> >opportunity to have their say purely because of the vagaries of e-mail, and
> >their frequency of accessing it. I don't believe that is supportable as a
> >principle in this particular electronic environment.
> >
> > > . 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?
> >
> >GH====> Neither am I, but I'm not supportive of undue haste either.
> >Quibbling over a day by e-mail strikes me as definitely depriving people of
> >reasonable opportunity to express themselves.
>
>I guess we have a different notion of undue haste. This group has existed
>for over a year.
>
>GH2> My concern is with this particular vote, not the overall timeframe.
>If people try to use undue haste at any part of a process, and others
>object, then the result is usually a slowing of progress.
The procedures for the vote were discussed for nearly two months in the P&P
subgroup, as well as on the main list. That doesn't sound hasty to me.
>It's not too soon to focus on a specific proposal. Nor should several
>months be considered too brief just to determine how to vote on a proposal.
>
>GH2> Agreed, however I also see a need for an agreed vision to have been
>achieved for that to reasonably occur. I don't believe that's happened here,
>or else we all wouldn't be having this discussion.
I'd suggest that the PAR is the agreed vision and that part of the problems
we're having is that some folks don't agree with the PAR and yet are still
participating in the group while effectively disagreeing with its official
goals.
>GH2> I realise it's frustrating for those who want to get on with it, but
>we are a group. I just don't see minority active support for the vote as
>being adequate when I believe there would be far more support for the
>slightly different status of SUMO as a working document.
>
>GH2> Do you disagree with me on my assessment of active support for the
>proposal to continue work on SUMO as a working document?
I'd certainly agree that there isn't the level of consensus we'd all like
but Frank has described how at this stage, compared to other standards
activities, the level of consensus is normal. Also, if only folks who
supported the charter of the SUO group were voting, the level of consensus
would appear greater I'm sure. In addition, several other folks commented
that the apparently low level of consensus was itself part of their reason
for voting against or abstain on SUMO. There's a snowballing effect that I
think may have magnified the extent of disagreement.
><snip>
></snip>
> >
> >-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
>
>Adam Pease
>Teknowledge
>(650) 424-0500 x571
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571