SUO: Conclusion of Vote and Call for Volunteers for Technical Editor
SUO:
As there have been no objections to the below proposed conclusions
and proposed actions, they are considered adopted. Congratulations, Ian,
Adam, and all those who have contributed to the Merged Ontology.
We now need to select a Technical Editor for this document, via an
open and fair process. I would now like to issue a 'Call for Volunteers'
for the position of Technical Editor of the Merged Ontology document.
Please respond to me and/or this list by Feb 23rd, or if this is not enough
time, ask for an extension.
Jim Schoening
-----Original Message-----
From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
[mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 6:53 PM
To: 'Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)'
Subject: 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