| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Frank,
. You said:
IMO, what is causing the disturbance is that we had a close vote, but a very small number of people not on the prevailing side have been disruptive by creating endless procedural issues. IMO, their tactics are designed to frustrate us and wear us down by endless E-mail chatter and by making us question our processes. As I've said, those pushing for procedural issues have not cited NYS law, Robert's, etc. ... they just continue to quote an IEEE Parliamentarian, whose only role is advisory, and who is wrong on his legal/parliamentary opinions (and the IEEE Parliamentarian did not provide citations). I don't want this to be a forum where people can simply defeat the process/progress by endless, procedural/delaying tactics.
. I suggest it was a bit more complicated than that. The critical feature was the fact that the closeness was accompanied by only a small number of Yes or No ballots. That meant that the real justification for proceeding on the basis of the vote is very tenuous.
. I suggest the real aim is to make quality decisions, and develop quality product, rather than "play rules".
Graham Horn
National Data Standards Unit
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
================================================
Phone: 02.6244.1094
Fax: 02.6244.1199
Email: Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Farance [mailto:frank@farance.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2001 0:49
To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: SUO: Possible Ballot
At 16:13 2001-10-09 +0200, Chris Partridge wrote:
>
> This seems to me to be a sensible suggestion.
> Presumably something like this needs to be decided upon.
I assume you know that the motion you referenced would require two-thirds approval (the motion is a procedural motion).
Also, I just got off the phone with IEEE (Judy Gorman, et al), including the IEEE-SA attorneys (who are working with IEEE institute attorneys). They said they should have an official response very soon ... this is a high priority for them. However, they said the outcome will be what we would normally expect: the usual Robert's Rules that abstains don't count. IEEE-SA attorneys are crafting the right response so this problem doesn't need to be addressed again. They are also going to talk to the IEEE Parliamentarian to make sure he only gives advice on Robert's and he scopes his answers with "this is what Robert's says, but there might be legal and standards issues, so you need to contact your standards adminstrator to get the official, complete response".
These IEEE-SA people said the IEEE pariliamentarian gave an incomplete answer, is not an attorney, had incorrect legal advice, and did not have an informed opinion.
Thus, the simplest solution is to wait for the official IEEE response.
> However, it does not seem to immediately address the problem of the position
> of the SUMO - which is (IMHO) what is causing the disturbance. Maybe that
> can be addressed in a subsequent ballot?
IMO, what is causing the disturbance is that we had a close vote, but a very small number of people not on the prevailing side have been disruptive by creating endless procedural issues. IMO, their tactics are designed to frustrate us and wear us down by endless E-mail chatter and by making us question our processes. As I've said, those pushing for procedural issues have not cited NYS law, Robert's, etc. ... they just continue to quote an IEEE Parliamentarian, whose only role is advisory, and who is wrong on his legal/parliamentary opinions (and the IEEE Parliamentarian did not provide citations). I don't want this to be a forum where people can simply defeat the process/progress by endless, procedural/delaying tactics.
-FF
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com
Standards, products, services for the Global Information Infrastructure