SUO: Request for ballot copies
Bob,
Your request for copies of all ballots, so you can check time-stamps,
is reasonable. I will forward them when I return to my office on Wednesday.
I'm currently dialing in through an ISP and accessing my email via a web
interface, which does not permit me to forward copies of so many messages.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Grayson Spillers
To: Frank Farance
Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Sent: 8/30/01 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: SUO: Forwarding of Ballot Comments
Frank,
We have seen a tally of the votes but not the votes themselves. Are you
saying there were no ballot comments on the votes not posted to the SUO
list?
Timing has been an issue. You may remember that the chair ruled against
my motion to reconsider (partly) because it was received seven minutes
after midnight east coast time (sent at 21:07 west coast time). Simply
posting the votes (completely and with their time stamps) to the SUO
list will provide transparency and avoid needless disputes.
If there were no comments there would be no new information (except
timing).
Bob
Frank Farance wrote:
At 09:49 2001-08-30 -0700, Robert Grayson Spillers wrote:
Jim,
By my count we have not seen at least ten of the votes. Aside from
ballot comments, timing of votes was an issue. Please forward the
votes.
Check your E-mail on 2001-08-16 and 2001-08-17. On 2001-08-16, the
Chair announced the result of the ballot (see first E-mail below). On
2001-08-17, the Chair has already distributed the votes (see second
E-mail below).
-FF
-------------------------------------------------------------
To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
<mailto:standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:33:18 -0400
Subject: SUO: SUMO Ballot Results
From: jim.s3@juno.com <mailto:jim.s3@juno.com>
Sender: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
<mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org>
SUO WG,
This is Jim Schoening, writing from my home email.
The results of the SUMO ballot are:
YES = 17
NO = 16
The motion passes.
Details (includine number of ABSTAINS and who voted each way)
will be posted when
I can either dial into my office email server or when I return
to
my office tomorrow morning.
Jim Schoening
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I"
<mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>
<James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>
To: "'Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail) '"
<mailto:standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
<standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Subject: SUO: SUMO Ballot Results and Details
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:26:29 -0400
SUO WG,
The vote tally from the SUMO email letter ballot (copy below) is
as
follows:
YES = 17 (Adam Pease, Frank Farance, John Dickert, Joshua
Tonkel,
Jim Pipher, Ed Dawidowicz,
Patrick Cassidy, Jay Halcomb, Katerina Sinitsa,
Chris Welty, William Burkett, Ian Niles, Saulius Maskeliunas, Julian
Fowler,
David Whitten, Roberto Bordogna, Werner Ceusters)
NO = 16 (Riichiro Mizoguchi, Graham Horn, Josiah Auspitz,
Mehrnoush
Shamsfard, Nicola Guarino, Robert Kent, Fred Chase, John Sowa, Bob
Spillers,
Richard Martin, Tim King, Matthew West, Chris Angus, Jon Awbrey, Pat
Hayes,
Stefano Borgo)
ABSTAIN = 9 (John Thompson, Philip Jackson, Michael Uschold,
Gian
Piero Zarri, Jon-Josef Costandi, John Velman, H. Sophia Pinto, Chris
Partridge, Douglas McDavid)
The motion passes.
Jim Schoening
----------------------------------------------------
---
Subject: SUO E-mail Ballot --
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 mem
bers 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
<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 d
iscuss 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 documen
t. 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
-------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
mailto:frank@farance.com <mailto:frank@farance.com>
http://farance.com <http://farance.com>
Standards, products, services for the Global Information Infrastructure