RE: SUO: Voting Rules
Dear Jim,
I think a "Vote on how to vote" would work if there were a high
turnout and/or low number of abstentions, which would mean that
it would be valid whatever the outcome under any voting system.
I am confident that members here would vote on this issue
particularly given the contentious history, and the damage that
talking about votes rather than talking about upper ontology
has caused us. Further, I think we all deserve the confidence
of knowing how our votes will count before we cast them, rather
than find out after the event.
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: 01 May 2003 17:33
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Cc: skydog@pacbell.net; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Voting Rules
>
>
>
> Matthew,
> Actually, I did appeal the prior decision last time and
> won the first round. Our next higher body, the Computer
> Society Standards Activity Board, agreed with my
> interpretation. If appealed again, I'm sure they will again
> agree with me.
> But the IEEE Standards Association BOG ignored the
> appeals process and directed anyway that the vote be
> interpreted the other way. I could have appealed this but I
> chose not to.
> I don't believe a working group can take a vote on how
> to interpret the rules. What rules would you use to tally
> the votes? It's my job as chair to interpret and apply the
> rules, and if anyone disagrees, they are free to appeal.
>
> Jim
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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!
>