SUO: Re: Proposed Actions
Robert Grayson Spillers wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> 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 characterize (^1) 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
>
> (^1). A statement should accompany the posting saying that all are
> unofficial documents and none have precedence over others.
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Jim,
I second this.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤