| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
I do not agree with many (probably most) of the statements in your note of 03/01/2001. Perhaps a more productive approach would be see what we can agree on.
1) I think we both agree that no official vote has been taken.
2) Consensus is desirable in a WG.
3) Your proposed conclusions and actions do not proceed from a official vote (i.e. no vote was taken).
Since there has been no vote, in order to adopt your proposed actions you must seek unanimous consent (or make a motion for a vote). In fact your announcement did ask if there were any objections. By Robert's Rules, a single objection defeats a request for unanimous consent.
Let me propose a comprise. Take the actions you proposed, but do it informally - just don't characterize1 them as official actions of the WG. If others have ontologies they wish to post and request the assistance of the WG to refine/develop them, allow them to do so - informally and without the necessity of a vote.
Over time, a natural consensus will develop. Some postings will receive much more attention, revision, critiques than others. When it is clear that a large majority favors a particular approach, then it is time for a vote to formalize this consensus. I suspect this will take more than a year.
Bob
1A statement should accompany
the posting saying that all are unofficial documents and none have precedence
over others.