Re: SUO: RE: John Sowa's motion
John,
1-- OK, lets wait and see what the
legal advice is, then working within that framework
see if we can frame a motion that will both get support
from the members and help further the standardization work.
2-- Well, I did intend to "Reply to All." Thanks for
catching this.
Our sysadmins have set up our Lotus Notes email so that
"Reply to all" is a separate action, after "Reply," not
just a different button. They've also made it impossible
to change this. Luckily I'm retiring at the end of this
month and I'll not only have more time to spend on
this, but I'll be able to set up my email the way I want.
Best,
John V.
"John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net> on 10/08/2001 07:40:44 PM
To: John.Velman@HSC.com
cc:
Subject: Re: SUO: RE: John Sowa's motion
John,
I'm willing to wait.
But did you intend to send that note only to me, or did you
push the REPLY button instead of REPLY-ALL?
John Sowa
John.Velman@HSC.com wrote:
>
> John, Chris, and Jim,
>
> John, I don't think you have to withdraw your motion, as
> the chair has already stated that your motion "is not clear
> enough for me to determine if it is in order." :-)
>
> However, one of us could make a motion that, hopefully, would
> be clear. I see a catch 22 here in that unless we have an
> agreed upon way of determining when a motion passes, we
> can't pass a procedural rule that specifies when a motion
> passes.
>
> At this point, we probably should wait for the promised
> legal opinion from IEEE before actually proposing a procedural
> rule. In the meantime, we can try to formulate one that
> is a) clear, and b) some people think makes sense on its own
> merits.
>
> Case 1 (rephrase of John's item 1):
>
> Resolved: A document will only be accepted as an SUO basis
> document if it is approved for this status by a majority of
> the total votes cast in an email ballot.
>
> Argument: This has the effect of making an abstention a
> "no" vote. There seems to be little point in abstaining
> rather than simply voting "no".
>
> It also allows a document to be accepted as a
> basis document by as little as a single vote if there is
> so much apathy that only one person votes.
>
> Perhaps something like
> Case 1A Resolved: A document will ony be accepted as an SUO basis
> document if
> a) it is approved for this status by a majority of the
> total votes cast in an email ballot, and
> b) at least 25% of the voting membership casts a vote, and
> c) at least 5 members voting on the issue express an intent
> to actively work on developing the features of the document
> that will be so used.
>
> ...
>
> Well, I have to go now! Interuptions prevent me from writing
> comments on Case 2.
>
> Comments and countercomments on the above will be graciously
> accepted as long as they don't mention either the chair's previous
> ruling, the parlimentarians advice, or Lowell's ruling. I hope
> for this issue to be discussed on its own merits.
>
> Best,
>
> John V.
>
> "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>@majordomo.ieee.org on 10/08/2001
12:37:49
> PM
>
> Please respond to "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
>
> Sent by: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
>
> To: John.Velman@HSC.com
> cc: Chris Partridge <chris_partridge@csi.com>, "Schoening, James R
CECOM
> DCSC4I" <James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>,
> "Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)"
> <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
>
> Subject: Re: SUO: RE: John Sowa's motion
>
> John, Chris, and Jim,
>
> I would be happy to withdraw my motion in favor of a similar
> reworded motion that is acceptably clear to everybody.
>
> My basic point is that the guidance from the IEEE Parliamentarian
> is now the best available opinion we have on this matter. I believe
> that any decision to accept or reject that guidance should be made
> by the SUO assembly rather than the chair.
>
> Therefore, I recommend that we draft a suitably acceptable motion
> to establish a clear procedure for determining how the winner should
> be determined. Without such rules, we ended up with two months of
> wrangling about the SUMO vote without a clear decision.
>
> The following two options summarize the intent of my previous
> motion:
>
> 1. Should the winning side be determined by a majority of all
> ballots cast (including abstentions)?
>
> 2. Should the winning side be determined by a plurality of all
> ballots cast (including abstentsions)?
>
> The guidance of the IEEE parliamentarian indicated that postion #1
> is the proper way to determine the winner. If anyone disagrees
> with that guidance, then they should either appeal or ask for
> a vote of the SUO assembly to determine which option they prefer.
>
> John Sowa