Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

SUO: RE: John Sowa's motion


Jim,

I think John's intention is reasonably clear.
Maybe it would stop this level of legal wrangling if you could draft
something that you think is clear enough for us to vote on. This might help
to stop the legalities getting in the way of what the members of SUO intend.

Regards,
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
Sent: 08 October 2001 17:44
To: 'John F. Sowa'; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject: SUO: IEEE legal opinion coming; John Sowa's motion


John and All,

        I agree with the consensus that we could benefit from clearer
guidance from IEEE.  I just talked to Lowell Johnson (CS VP Standards) who
agreed to push harder for this.  As he stated in his message to SUO, this
matter was taken up by the attorney for the IEEE Standards Association.
Lowell will make some calls tomorrow to push for a rapid and clear response,
which should be within a week.

        John, Your motion as stated is not clear enough for me to determine
if it is in order.  You'll need to clearly state what YOU want to propose,
not loosely refer to the guidance from the parliamentarian. You may want to
wait for the aforementioned legal opinion to see if this changes anything.

Jim Schoening

-----Original Message-----
From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 7:57 PM
To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject: Motion to resolve the impasse


----snip-----------
John Sowas motioned:

 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.