RE: SUO: Re: Charter vs. Consensus
John.
Are we appealing to Roberts Rules of Order (RRO) when it suits the
chairman and not when it doesn't? I don't blame Jim for not having this
issue nailed down, but I hope it is clear that it's time for us to take
care of it. If we were a much more unified group, I could see us being
loose about governance. But with this level of dissention, we need
clear methods for resolving divisive issues. The first amendment to the
charter needs to clarify our governance. I suggest that we are governed
by RRO-X as amended by SUO as allowed by IEEE.
But back to the charter, there is no definition in MW-3 that says that a
charter is a new-age feel-good ignorable document. RRO-X clearly
respects charters as codified consensus.
All proposals and claims can be measured against the charter.
-Eric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 12:52 AM
> To: jim.s3@juno.com; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: SUO: Re: Charter vs. Consensus
>
>
> Eric,
>
> I think that Jim has made the point rather well:
>
> > The three documents are close enough to the PAR to proceed within
> >the WG. Yes, we could draft 3 new PARa for each document, but that
would
> >serve little purpose. The 3 docs should attempt to progress and
build
> >consensus. That's the real objective.
>
> We have a lot of work to do, and as with any R & D project, the
> result is not likely to be identical to the original proposal.
> So let's get on with the work and see what it leads to.
>
> John