| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
However I wish to discuss issues about the vote itself and what, if anything, it means. It is not clear from Robert's Rules of Order that the vote should be counted by the method you used - particularly how the ABSTAIN votes were counted. It is a possible interpretation - Robert's calls for counting of all the votes cast and determining a majority of the YES vs NO votes with blank votes not counted. In this circumstance is an ABSTAIN vote a blank vote? Since it requires comments, I think it is not a blank vote. Reasonable people can disagree, but it is not clear how the rule should be applied.
It is unwise to wait until the vote is taken to announce the method and authority used to determine the results.
Robert's rules were not designed for this sort of vote and the interpretation of this particular issue is murky. Clearly most standards efforts strive for a broad based consensus and usually require 75% of those eligible to vote (effectively a quorum) and 75% of those actually voting. ABSTAIN whether counted as NO or not does apply to the calculation of 75% of those actually voting. (In your call for a vote ABSTAIN was listed as a possible voting choice with attendant requirements - i.e. comments required.)
Regardless of how the vote was counted, other provisions of Robert's Rules were not observed. In particular the making of motions and call for a vote on the initiative of the chair. I do recall someone raising a point of order.
This vote was then characterized as a "straw vote" and not an "official" action of the group. I have no problem with an expression of opinion. I do have a problem if the chair then announces his "Proposed Conclusions and Actions" as a result of the "straw vote". It appears to be an official action of the WG.
Reference to "a" or "one" unofficial document being worked on by some members of the WG, more accurately reflects the situation. It is Niles (Teknowledge?) work and he is completely in charge of how it proceeds. If he agrees to be bound by the consensus of the WG and do the work of technical editor, I applaud him - it is very useful work. An "official" appointment as "technical editor" is unnecessary and inappropriate. It appears to put a stamp on something that has not been formally agreed to. I have no objection to informal arrangements.
Once again I wish to point out that I believe this vote to be unnecessary and divisive.
In your note of 2/13/01 titled " SUO: Proposed Conclusions and Actions from Vote" you asked if there were any objections. I object.
Bob
Josiah Lee Auspitz wrote:
Jim,Maybe you or some ome of the other experts in IEEE procedure in our ranks
could clarify what is going on here.First you posted several topics as needing consensus before we
proceed. What is the status of the consensus on these topics? Does it
warrant plunging ahead before developing a greater consensus? I strongly
think not.Second, you responded to Graham Horn that it was wrong for a single
organization, no matter how large and influential, to claim multiple
votes. Yet of the 11 Yes votes I count at least three from Teknowledge
just the number needed to assure a majority. Wasn't there some celebrated
case in IEEE involving bloc voting by a single company (as opposed to
individualized participation in the case of the Boeing participants)?
[This is the kind of problem I tried to suggest in noting the limitations
of the "material interest" criterion for the peculiar character of the
SUO.]Of course this is only a straw vote, and everybody good humoredly followed
your request for it, your revision of it, your launching of discussion of
the comments, and now your declaration that we can put it all behind us on
the basis of Roberts Rules of Order. Before following this next turn I
think it would be prudent to ask you to summarize the status of consensus
on the discussion points you proposed and to assure that the agreement on
them is sufficient to make it productive to plunge onward. Otherwise, the
next round of reviews will not be more favorable than this round, or you
may find active participation limited to the point of diminishing
legitimacy. The array of talents on this list is very impressive for the
job at hand, and good advice has been proffered by seasoned hands. It
would be a pity to see all this squandered.Lee
Josiah Lee Auspitz
lee@textwise.com
17 Chapel Street
Somerville, MA 02144
617-628-6228
fax -9441Please send attachments pasted within text or in ASCII
Plain Text non-proprietary software.On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Ian Niles wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> I hereby volunteer for the role of Technical Editor of the Merged
> Ontology document.
>
> -Ian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> > [mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
> > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 7:11 PM
> > To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > Subject: 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
> >
> >
>