Re: SUO: RE: John Sowa's motion
Chris,
With respect, I think that asking the Chair to redraft
a motion is a bad precedent. Based on my own experience,
being chair of any organization that is voluntary and
has no paid staff burdens one with too much administrative
work as it is. Moreover, I believe that, legalistically, any
change in wording would have to be made by ammendment,
which requires a motion to ammend (which the chair
can't make). ---I haven't consulted Roberts on this
recently, but I believe this to be the case.
At the same time, I appreciate your intent. While reading
through John's motion and the various responses, I have had some
concerns about how this motion would be handled. In
face to face meetings a motion often has to be restated for
clarity before a vote is taken. In a formal setting, such
a restatement would have to be by ammendment. In an informal
setting, with good will on all sides (not necessarily agreement,
just good will), a vague or improperly worded motion is often
made and seconded, debated, and then reworded to everyone's
satisfaction before the vote is taken. Of course in these
cases if a particular contingent feels that their rights
are not being honored, they have a clear case for appeal. Such
would rarely be needed, because simply calling for adherence
to the formal procedure would cause such to occur (in the
presence of the aforementioned goodwill.)
It is becoming clear, to me, at least, that a deliberative body
working by email needs a set of rules and procedures that
are somewhat different from those of a body that deliberates
face-to-face.
We definitely need an authoritative, in writing, ruling by
IEEE on how ballots of various kinds should be conducted by
email---and of course defining clearly the different kinds of
ballots. Achieving a workable system with clear rules might
also require a lot of thought about the overall process by
which products are created by a group operating by email.
I don't think this is simple, unless the group is
small and well aligned on most issues. Clearly SUO isn't.
On the other hand, I see the size and diversity of opinion
in SUO as a potential strength, if we can learn how to use it.
Best,
John V.
Chris Partridge <chris_partridge@csi.com>@majordomo.ieee.org on 10/08/2001
09:37:13 AM
Please respond to Chris Partridge <chris_partridge@csi.com>
Sent by: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
To: "Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I"
<James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>, "'John F. Sowa'"
<sowa@bestweb.net>, "Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)"
<standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
cc:
Subject: 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.