Re: SUO: RE: [Fwd: FW: Request for Rules advice.]
If the ruling of the parliamentarian stands that "abstain"
counts in determining a majority of those "present
and voting", then we may need a different mechanism in
order to accomplish the distinction we had intended.
My preference would be to adhere to the parliamentarian's
advice, and simply change our procedures in this
discussion group. By this ruling, the motion on
SUMO as a working document has failed. It can be
fairly moved again, since the effect of "abstain" had
been misunderstood by at least a few (I was sure
surprised).
For the future, we should consider a change in our
own procedures that will not require a modification
of the formal parliamentary rules under which we operate.
Specifically, we wanted to be certain that voting
members registered some indication that they had
received and considered each formal motion. So that
the individual voting member may abstain without
unintended consequence on issues where that member
has no preference, the voting member can simply
**acknowledge** receipt of the ballot notice, and
this should be counted in the category of
"received", which can suffice to serve as a
record of that member's continued active
participation, but have no effect on the
voting. We had discussed requiring members
to participate in some way in order to retain
voting rights, and this kind of mechanism
should suffice.
Pat Cassidy
===================================
owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org wrote:
> Bob and SUO WG,
>
> The IEEE parliamentarian has made a determination that ABSTAINS are
> counted in determining a majority. In other words, there must a majority of
> YES votes vs other (NO and ABSTAIN) votes.
>
> This was briefed to a recent meeting of high level IEEE standards
> leaders, who were as surprised as I am. Most indicated this was not the
> common practice, and I believe none spoke up that it was what was being
> followed.
>
> This issue is now being raised to the highest authority in IEEE, the
> Board of Governors. I'll keep the group posted as I get more information.
>
> Jim Schoening
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Grayson Spillers [mailto:skydog@postoffice.pacbell.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 3:25 PM
> To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> Cc: 'Standard-Upper-Ontology '
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: Request for Rules advice.]
>
>
> Jim,
> A working group with responsibility for these issues operating under the
> direct authority of the IEEE Board of Directors including the official IEEE
> Parliamentarian, the IEEE Legal Counsel and a Director Emeritus appointed by
> the IEEE President have met and issued an authoritative decision.
>
> Any further delay violates your responsibility as chair.
>
> Bob
>
> "Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I" wrote:
>
>
>>Bob,
>> If he's correct on the majority issue, I assure you I will declare
>>that the vote failed. But I'm quite sure he is wrong, so I am checking
>>again. Be patient.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Robert Grayson Spillers [mailto:skydog@postoffice.pacbell.net]
>>Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:21 PM
>>To: 'Standard-Upper-Ontology '
>>Subject: SUO: [Fwd: FW: Request for Rules advice.]
>>
>>Jim,
>>You asked for advice. You got it. You will remember this has been my
>>position since the very first vote over a year ago. Lyle is the
>>official IEEE Parliamentarian and has acted after consultation with the
>>IEEE legal counsel and a direct representative of the IEEE President.
>>This is the authoritative source and was assembled to review this
>>specific issue.
>>
>>The SUMO vote failed. Let's move on.
>>
>>Bob
>>
>
--
=============================================
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
internet: cassidy@micra.com
=============================================