SUO: Proposed Conclusions and Actions from Vote
SUO,
Final vote results on Merged Ontology (see ballot question below)
are:
YES = 11
NO = 9
ABSTAIN = 4
YES votes were from: John Thompson, Adam Pease, John Velman, Graham
Horn, Roberto Bordogna, Ian Niles, Douglas McDavid, John Sowa, Fredrick
Chase, Frank Farance, Jay Halcomb.
NO votes were from: Matthew West, Chris Partridge, Robert Kent,
Stefano Borgo, John Dickert, Francis McCabe, Lee Auspitz, Bob Spillers,
Chris Angus.
ABSTAINs were from: Pat Hayes, Michael Uschold, Sofia Pinto, Nicola
Guarino
Please correct me if I have tabulated your vote incorrectly.
Observations:
1. The IEEE default voting rule within a working group is a simple majority
of YES vs. NO votes, with ABSTAINs not included in determining majority.
2. This vote was presented as an unofficial straw poll, because we are
currently establishing the list of official voters.
3. We previously established considerable opposition to calling the Merged
Ontology a "Base Document," and have since modified the question to remove
this label.
4. All comments that were directly related to the question have been posted,
and received much discussion. Some votes did change as a result of
discussion and are reflected in the above results. Those comments that
related to improving the document were not to be addressed until and unless
the group decided to work on this document. This is the way ballot
resolution works. We try to improve documents and build consensus by
resolving comments.
5. This is a very early-on vote in the development of the proposed document.
It will eventually need to gain 75% approval from the final balloting group.
Proposed Conclusions:
1. A simple majority voted YES to the question (copy below), therefore, this
vote has passed, but by a recognized thin margin.
2. Aside from the thin approval margin, the group appears to have rather
strong consensus that work should proceed on the Merged Ontology. This
comes even from many of those who voted NO, who did so for the reasons in
the posted comments.
Proposed Actions resulting from above:
Step 1: Post link to Merged Ontology on SUO web site at http://suo.ieee.org.
as follows:
Documents under development by this working group:
1. Merged Ontology <link address>
Step 2: Select a Technical Editor for Merged Ontology document, to be
accomplished by issuing a 'Call for volunteers' followed by an open and fair
selection process.
Step 3: Place Merged Ontology Document under control of SUO WG, requiring
Technical Editor to gain approval from group before making changes. This
would be mostly via an informal consensus process, but would also include
formal votes (with comment resolution) every 3-6 months.
Step 4: Technical Editor will resolve all comments from the previous vote
that dealt with improvements to Merged Ontology. Additional comments will
also be solicited.
Are there any objections to these Observations, Proposed
Conclusions, or Proposed Actions?
Jim Schoening
Chair, SUO WG
===============================
The completed call for vote follows:
-----Original Message-----
From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
[mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 7:03 AM
To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject: SUO: Revised Call for Vote on Merged Ontology
SUO Participants,
1. Since the prior vote had a variety of problems, it is amended as follows
to focus on the key question.
2. If you have already cast a vote (and received acknowledgement) you don't
need to vote again, unless you wish to change your vote or comments.
However, this is an open list and all are welcome to post or repost their
opinions.
3. This message is a call for a vote on the question:
Should the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
commence work on the Merged Ontology as posted by
Ian Niles with the intent of attempting to develop
it into a final standards document?
4. Background: If this vote passes, this document will change from being
the work (and under the control) of a group of individuals to being the work
(and under the control) of the SUO WG. A Technical Editor will need to be
appointed or elected, who will need group approval before making changes.
This does not require frequent formal votes for every change. A better
approach for daily or weekly updates is to develop consensus by resolving
objections, as we did when revising the Scope and Purpose. In other words,
the editor posts a suggested change and asks for any objections. Items that
do not have clear consensus would be accumulated. Then, every 3-6 months
the group could have a formal vote on what would be the next 'Working
Draft.' Comments would be submitted and resolved before approval as the next
Working Draft.
5. The purpose of this vote is to determine the level of consensus we have
for focusing work on this document. In other words, we need to decide if we
are going to go down this path or not. A working group may decide to work
on more than one document, so anyone else is free to submit one.
6. The primary purpose of this vote is NOT to propose improvements to the
document, unless they are major enough for you to vote against focusing work
on this document. However, such general improvement comments are welcome
and will be resolved (but not unless and until the vote passes. There would
be no sense in resolving comments if the group does not want to proceed with
this document.).
7. Since we are still in the process of establishing official voting rights,
I suggest we first conduct this as an unofficial straw poll, such that
anyone can cast a vote. After resolving all comments, if consensus is not
clear, we will have the option of conducting a formal vote (once voting
rights are established).
8. Your options for voting are YES (comments optional), NO (comments
required), or ABSTAIN (comments optional).
9. You may send your votes either to me or to this reflector.
10. Please vote by Feb 1, 2001.
Jim Schoening
Chair, SUO WG