SUO: Quorum
SUO,
Would others care to respond to this. I can't until tonight.
Jim Schoening
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Jim,
The problem is not YES>NO. The issue is whether a quorum participates in
the vote. Have you and Jon made a final determination of the voting
members? This must be completed before the vote is called. If after the
vote is cast, YES+NO+ABSTAIN>NumberOfVotingMembers/2, we have a valid
vote and the prevailing side, YES or NO, is that with the most votes -
ABSTAIN only counts toward the quorum and a tie fails to carry. We
cannot assume that a failure to vote is considered as ABSTAIN. If we
cannot get half of the voting members to participate in this vote it is
probably time to abandon the effort.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
jim.s3@juno.com
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 10:39 PM
To: matthew.west@shell.com
Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Almost-Final Ballot Questions
Matt,
Either way I count this vote, it will get appealed. The next
higher level will most likely agree with my interpretation (YES>NO),
since they did last time. The level above that may swing the other way
(YES>NO+ABSTAIN), but when they take a serious look at this (which is
required when following the proper appeals process), I believe they will
also agree.
Jim Schoening
On Sun, 18 May 2003 14:43:54 +0100 "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE"
<matthew.west@shell.com> writes:
>
> Dear Jim,
>
> > 5. As stated previously, each motion will pass if YES-votes >
> > No-votes.
> > ABSTAINs are recorded but not factored into whether the
> > motion passes.
>
> I'm happy with this way of counting votes (or the other way).
> However, what I would be upset by is casting my vote thinking it
> will be counted one way, and finding it is actually counted
> another way.
>
> Please check that by making this declaration of how votes will
> be counted that this cannot later be overturned.
>
>
> 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: 18 May 2003 13:01
> > To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Cc: apease@ks.teknowledge.com; sowa@bestweb.net
> > Subject: SUO: Almost-Final Ballot Questions
> >
> >
> >
> > SUO Working Group,
> >
> > 1. This is not yet the actual ballot, so please don't vote yet.
> >
> > 2. Below are the latest versions of the motions by Adam Pease and
> John
> > Sowa.
> >
> > 3. If you have additional suggested changes that will impact
> > your vote,
> > please submit them to the list or to Adam or John.
> >
> > 4. If both motions are ready about the same time, I will
> > include them in
> > a single email ballot, but you'll vote on each independently.
> >
> > 5. As stated previously, each motion will pass if YES-votes >
> > No-votes.
> > ABSTAINs are recorded but not factored into whether the
> > motion passes.
> >
> > 6. The ballot, when released, will be open for 14 days.
> >
> > 7. The ballots will be posted to this list and also mailed
> directly to
> > all voting members.
> >
> > Jim Schoening
> >
> > ------------------------------------------
> >
> > Ballot Question #1 (Latest Draft from Adam Pease):
> >
> > "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology
> > Working Group
> > commence work on the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO)
> > version 1.51
> > [April 11, 2003] posted at:
> > http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/
> SUO/Merge.t
> xt?rev=1.49&content-type=text/plain with the intent of developing it
> into
> a final SUO document."
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Ballot Question #2 (Latest Draft from John Sowa):
>
> "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology
> Working Group commence work on a project to develop
> a standard based on three starting candidates,
> IFF, OpenCyc, and SUMO, and continuing as follows:
>
> (1) The development process shall include a
> collaboration of members of all three groups
> and other SUO participants to determine how each
> of the three starting candidates can complement
> and support the contributions of the others.
>
> (2) The results shall include a library of modules
> derived from OpenCyc, SUMO, and/or other sources.
> Each module shall consist of closely related
> axioms and definitions for some aspect of a
> standard upper ontology.
>
> (3) The standard shall include the specification
> of a methodology for testing the modules for
> consistency, relating them to one another in
> a generalization/specialization hierarchy,
> and combining two or more modules to derive a
> new module that is larger and more specialized
> than the modules from which it was derived."
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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!
________________________________________________________________
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!