RE: SUO: Voting Rules
Dear Jim,
I don't buy your argument below.
My reading is that the board was trying to determine what rules applied to
our vote, based on precedence of the various rules of various bodies.
It therefore seems likely that if we have another vote, and it is appealed
that we will get the same outcome. (A colleague of mine defines lunacy
as operating the same process twice and expecting a different outcome :-( )
Personally, I think it is more important that we have certainty about how
our votes will be interpreted, than that one or another voting method is
actually used.
I therefore suggest that we have a vote on the voting method we will use.
This can then be sent to the board for information, and if they have an
objection, the ball is in their court.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jim.s3@juno.com [mailto:jim.s3@juno.com]
> Sent: 25 April 2003 03:41
> To: skydog@pacbell.net
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: SUO: Voting Rules
>
>
>
> Skydog,
>
> The Board of Governors ruling applied only to the
> prior vote. If
> they wanted it to apply to future votes across the hundreds of IEEE
> working groups, they could have announced it, which they did
> not. This
> was obviously a hasty ruling that was taken no further, so I don't see
> why our group should be the only one to follow it. I'd
> certainly follow
> it if they implemented it across IEEE.
> I never did appeal their ruling. I was advised to allow other
> interested parties to take such action, which none did. I did follow
> their direction, which was to invalidate the vote.
>
> Jim Schoening
>
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:01:46 -0700 Robert Grayson Spillers
> <skydog@pacbell.net> writes:
> >
> > Jim,
> > Your interpretation is incorrect.
> >
> > The ruling (actually a motion unanimously approved by the IEEE SA
> > Board
> > of Governors) stated clearly the procedure for counting
> votes. This
> >
> > Working Group and specifically you as chair were directed to use
> > this
> > method - a motion must get a majority of all votes cast including
> > abstains.
> >
> > Since this has been dissected in excruciating detail in previous
> > exchanges I will only state that the Board of Governors has
> > unanimously
> > and formally decided this issue. You as chair of the Working Group
> > are
> > bound by their decision.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
> >
> > >SUO Members,
> > >
> > > Since we have a couple votes coming up, I should clarify my
> > >interpretation of the rules on how ballots are tallied.
> > >
> > > After the SUMO vote of Aug 2001, a ruling came down from the IEEE
> > >Standards Association Board of Governors that overturned
> that vote.
> > That
> > >ruling stated that a majority of all ballots (including ABSTAINS)
> > must
> > >vote YES for a motion to pass. For example, 3 YES, 2 NO, and 2
> > ABSTAIN
> > >would not pass, because out of 7 total votes, 4 must be YES for it
> > to
> > >pass. This directive applied only to the SUMO vote. There was
> > talk and
> > >perhaps intention to change IEEE voting rules, but no such
> > announcements
> > >or changes in policies & procedures came down. To my knowledge,
> > none of
> > >the other ~400 IEEE standards groups are following that ruling.
> > It
> > >remains common practice by IEEE groups to follow the Roberts Rules
> > of
> > >Order rule that ABSTAINS are not counted in the ballot tally (i.e.
> > 3 YES,
> > >2 NO, 2 ABSTAIN would pass). Based on this, I believe the proper
> > rules
> > >to follow are that of Roberts Rules of Order.
> > >
> > >Jim Schoening
> > >Chair, SUO WG
> > >
> > _
> > >The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> > >Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> > >Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
>