RE: SUO: RE: Motion to resolve the impasse

["Philip Jackson" <phil.jackson@computer.org>]

Bob,

 

I agree with you that Lowell's note does not say the IEEE Parliamentarian's advice is incorrect and should be disregarded.

 

I think we need a clear, formal statement from IEEE leadership as to whether the parliamentarian's advice stands or should be disregarded. This statement should come from either the parliamentarian himself, or from someone at IEEE whose scope of authority subsumes the parliamentarian's, if there is such a person. I think it is possible that the parliamentarian may decide to formally retract or reverse his advice if it is the case that many other IEEE working groups conduct votes according to the rule that abstain's do not count in the comparison of yes vs. no votes. He may not have been aware of this and considered it in his previous advice.

 

My understanding is that Jim has tried to follow the advice of Lowell Johnson and resolve this at his level. However, as matters have developed, he could not succeed in resolving it as his level, without a clear formal statement on the matter of the parliamentarian's advice, from IEEE leadership. So, I'd recommend that this issue be taken up the chain, to see if we can get some further, formal clarification.

 

Phil Jackson

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Grayson Spillers [mailto:skydog@postoffice.pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 10:54 PM
To: Philip Jackson
Cc: John F. Sowa; Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Motion to resolve the impasse

Phil,
If the IEEE leadership has given the chair direction that the IEEE Parliamentarian's advice is incorrect the chair has not shared that direction, who gave it or under what circumstances.  What Lowell's note says is

Both the IEEE Parliamentarian and legal counsel as well as those at the Institute level who may have been contacted have agreed to forward all future communications by anyone regarding 1600.1 to me as CS VP of Standards for resolution or commenting.
....

Finally, the Standards Association Counsel is contacting the IEEE Counsel to fully understand the issues and to define the procedures and responsibilities in this process that the SA will carry out.

I have discussed this with the Chairman of the Standards Board and he is in full agreement with the process as described above and will help us work our way through this matter. I have asked him to co-sign this email so that you know of this direct connection to the Standards Board. In any case, I will keep you informed of any and all developments in this matter.

This does not say the IEEE Parliamentarian's rulings are incorrect.  It says that the legal counsels will consult and Lowell will advise us of the results.  This is similar to a business situation where a branch office is dealing with a corporate staff.   The branch office gets the first shot at resolving the issue, but if they don't resolve it correctly the corporate staff (IEEE Institute) has the final word.

The chair did say

I have been advised by Mr. Lowell Johnson, Computer Society (CS) VP for Standards (and Chair of CS Standards  Activity Board, our next higher body, and the person to whom appeals are made), to not wait for further guidance from IEEE, but to proceed with an attempt to resolve the SUMO vote issue at the Chair level.

Obviously, the chair has not resolved the issue at his level.

Bob

 

Philip Jackson wrote:

John,

> > If you honestly think any of the (relavent) guidance from the IEEE
> > parliamentarian was correct (which I don't), then appeal.  If you
> > are correct, my rulings will be overturned.  But until then, they
> > stand.  That's the process.  Please follow it or drop this matter.
>
> I am dismayed by Jim's attitude.  He has told us that he will ignore
> the guidance of the IEEE parliamentarian and that no other members'
> opinions are relevant to his decision.

In Jim's defense, he says he has been told by his IEEE leadership to take
the approach that the IEEE parliamentarian's guidance (which is thought to
be contrary to the voting practice of apparently all IEEE working groups) is
not applicable because it was not obtained through an appeals process that
went through Lowell -- perhaps such an appeals process would have allowed
more thorough consideration of all facts & arguments, etc. Jim says that his
IEEE leadership are asking him to insist that any disgreements on this
matter be appealed to Lowell.

[...]
> In order to clear up this impasse and get on with the business
> of developing a standard for ontology, I hereby submit the
> following motion:
>
>    Considering the varying opinions about the validity of the
>    SUMO vote and the narrow plurality for the affirmative,
>    I move that a vote be taken on whether to accept the
>    recommendations by either
>
>    - the IEEE parliamentarian, who said that a majority of all
>      votes cast (including abstentions) is necessary for a decision,
>
>    or
>
>    - the chair, who said that a plurality of votes (i.e., not
>      counting abstentions) is sufficient for a decision.
>
> This resolution means that an abstention is not the same as a NO vote.
> It merely means that the voter does not believe that there is
> sufficient evidence at the time of the vote to make a clear decision
> one way or the other.

There is a recursive problem: How should the vote on this motion be
conducted? Should abstains be allowed, and if so, how should abstains be
treated?

The issue of how votes should be conducted in a standards group may be
something that we should not vote on -- rather, we should insist on clear,
definitive rules from IEEE.

>
> In the case of SUMO, this resolution would imply that neither
> position, YES or NO, would have a majority, and no decision would
> be taken at present.  The SUMO proposal could still be resubmitted
> at a later date when more evidence of its progress, development,
> and utility becomes available.

This seems to presuppose that losing a vote on how votes should be conducted
is linked to the question of whether SUMO is ready to be a working document
at this point or not. I do not think such a linkage should be assumed,
especially because those who voted to abstain in the previous vote did so
with the understanding that their votes would not affect the outcome, i.e.
that the outcome would be decided just on a comparison of yes to no votes.

Also, the SUMO advocates were originally told they won the previous vote, so
if they were to lose a vote on this motion, then it would only be fair to
them to allow another vote on SUMO to be conducted promptly, under the rule
that yes's would have to exceed abstains + no's. At this point we should not
presume that all those who abstained on the previous vote would abstain on a
new vote, nor that more people would vote against SUMO than for it. Each
voter should be allowed to recast his/her own vote.

Phil Jackson