SUO: Re: Motion 1 (SUMO) and Motion 2 (IFF/Combined) both passed
Bob,
I disagree with you, but these points have all been made before. I
continue to be disappointed that you focus your efforts on trying to block
progress, rather than work on a document.
Adam
At 01:06 PM 6/18/2003 -0700, Robert Spillers wrote:
>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>