Re: SUO: RE: Conclusion of Vote and Call for Volunteers for Technical Editor
Hi Lee and Rob (Skydog),
. While I understand where you're coming from,
isn't it better to just get on with it at this stage?
. Yes, I have problems with the voting method, too. However, I
feel the later approval stages is the time to really address them.
. Personally, I believe the call for a vote, and the way it
was done was a mistake, but even Jim has apologised for that.
. Many of us agree Ian's work is worthwhile. Matthew is
prepared to contribute to it, including scoping and technical documentation.
Ian is prepared to take on board comments and criticisms, and rectify
problem areas and faulty portions.
. Meanwhile, Robert Kent is working on a new project that may
be of relevance to the overall effort.
. Where's the problem?
Cheers Graham Horn
National Data Standards Unit
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
================================================
Phone: 02.6244.1094
Fax: 02.6244.1199
Email: Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au <mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
-----Original Message-----
From: skydog@pacbell.net [mailto:skydog@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 11:50 AM
To: Josiah Lee Auspitz
Cc: Ian Niles; 'Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I'; Standard-Upper-Ontology
(E-mail)
Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Conclusion of Vote and Call for Volunteers for
TechnicalEdit or
Jim,
I share Lee's concerns regarding these issues.
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 -9441
Please 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
<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
<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 <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
<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