SUO: Re: Motion 1 (SUMO) and Motion 2 (IFF/Combined) both passed
Title:
Adam,
One of the major problems with this group is that the chair (and you) think
that the chair may determine what parliamentary rules exist - and that the
chair can change those rules to suit his (and your) preferences. Neither
Jim nor you nor I determine the IEEE By-Laws or New York law.
The "strange process" to which you refer (in your note quoted below) is in
fact
- A ruling of the Corporate Governance Office of the IEEE Institute the
parent of the IEEE Standards Association.
- A legal opinion of the legal counsels of the IEEE Institute and the
IEEE Standards Association that adopts and gives the legal rational for (1)
above
- A formal (and unanimous) motion of the IEEE-SA Board of Governors that
adopted the legal counsels opinion
- Direct instruction to Jim from the IEEE-SA to follow the direction
of the Board of Governors
- Further explicit direction to Jim if he did not comply with the previous
instruction he would be removed as chair.
What is strange is that Jim (and you) continue to resist the clear direction
and authority of the formal structure of the IEEE and the IEEE-SA.
Regarding the IFF vote (August of 2001), like the first SUMO vote no effort
was made to determine the number of members present and eligible to vote.
The only counts available were the YES , NO and ABSTAIN votes. The 49 members
you mention were the total number of members - not members present and eligible
to vote. The only record of members present are those who actually voted,
on this basis the IFF vote passed - just as on the same basis the SUMO vote
failed.
The parliamentary procedures are clear and have been clearly communicated
to the chair since September of 2001 as documented in my previous message.
Yes, there have been extensive efforts to manipulate the rules - by the
chair. All of those efforts seem to benefit SUMO.
It is interesting isn't it, that after so many denials that you sought a
privileged position for SUMO that you now maintain it has one.
Bob
Adam Pease wrote:
Bob,
This is very disappointing. SUMO passed with a clear majority, as did
John Sowa's motion. SUMO passed on the last vote as well, but through a
strange process you managed to get the voting rules changed after the vote,
so that people who voted "abstain" had their votes counted as "no" votes.
This time we even followed your process and now you're attempting to change
the rules again.
We should also note that the first IFF vote, which you have not challenged
after nearly two years, also fails by your current interpretation. On the
vote that was taken 31 Aug 01 there were 49 voting members the results were
YES = 21, NO = 6 and ABSTAIN = 9. Under your interpretation, that would
mean it failed since 21 < 49/2. Of course, that's spurious, and it passed,
as did both recent votes.
Rather than engaging in maneuvering about voting rules, why not work on
a starter document that you believe in, and write some standards words?
Surely a positive approach would be a better use of everyone's energies,
wouldn't it?
Adam
At 03:44 AM 6/18/2003 -0700, Robert Spillers wrote:
John,
Your motion (#2) says
1. The standard shall be based on the contributions of three SUO
candidate projects: IFF, OpenCyc, and SUMO.
A contribution is different from a starter document and is specifically listed
in a different section of the SUO web page.
Teknowledge's motion states their position differently as "the intent of
developing it into a final SUO document", and separately mentions their
" further intent to collaborate" on a joint library of modules.
"Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
commence work on the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) version 1.52
[April 25, 2003] posted at:
<<http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/SUO/Merge>http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/SUO/Merge.
txt?rev=1.49&content-type=text/plain> (containing the ontology) and
<http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/FormalSUOdraft.rtf>http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/FormalSUOdraft.rtf>
(containing the text of the formal standards proposal) with the intent of
developing it into a final SUO document. There is further intent to
collaborate with the SUO group working on a joint library of modules
project.
Since these categories are separate and Teknowledge's motion (#1) was defeated,
SUMO and OpenCyc are properly listed as contributions and IFF as a starter
document. As your motion states its purpose is to focus on "ontology specification
and registration" using the contributions of IFF, OpenCyc and SUMO as distinct
from Teknowledge's purpose of becoming "a final SUO document".
I have previously stated my opinion that the SUO should accept all documents
offered without distinction and without any being privileged. Since we
do maintain distinctions and privilege SUMO is not entitled to the status
of a "Starter Document".
It is curious that a recent change shows SUMO as a Starter Document while
OpenCyc is not Perhaps it is not so curious considering that Adam Pease
is the web master.
Bob
John F. Sowa wrote:
Folks,
Adam Pease asked me to state my position on the following
statement:
"SUMO is now officially recognized as a starting candidate"
Since I believe that statement is implied by motion #2,
which passed under any interpretation of the voting rules,
I agree that statement is true -- independently of how
the rules may be interpreted with regard to motion #1.
I also believe that OpenCyc is officially recognized as
a starting candidate, as a result of the vote on motion #2.
IFF had previously been recognized as a starting candidate,
and motion #2 has not changed its status.
John Sowa