ONT Re: Gathering Questions
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
FF = Frank Farance
JA = Jon Awbrey
JS = John Sowa
Frank,
I will include relevant excerpts of this exchange in my note to the
main SUO list tomorrow, but I had felt that it was a pressing enough
matter that I needed to respond to the points being discussed while
they were still current, and this form of address is the only option
that I have if I want to put my remarks on record and still have them
be timely.
FF: I've written back to you and the original people CCd on the list,
but not to the ontology list since they weren't part of the
original discussion.
JS: I like what seems to be to be a sound basis for an emering consensus:
the suggestions by Matthew West, as extended by Tim King and further
supported and clarified by Jon Awbrey.
JS: Following is Tim's extension to Matthew's suggestion:
JS: Voting options =
Yes, No, Abstain (no opinion), Abstain (not participating)
JS: Active members (registered to continue membership) =
Yes + No + Abstain (no opinion) + Abstain (not participating)
JS: Voters = Yes + No + Abstain (no opinion)
JS: Majority: Yes / Voters > y%
FF: The lines above are the nature of the problem.
I agree with Jon Awbrey's statment: (paraphrase)
"an abstain is neither pro nor con" ... the purpose
of registering an abstain is to neither support nor
oppose a motion/ballot. With the above rules, voting
"Abstain (no opinion)" has the same effect as a No vote,
thus an Abstain doesn't count has having "no opinion".
JA: No, an abstention does not have the same effect as a no vote.
If the noes had won a plurality, but not a majority, then it
would be equally possible for them to say that the abstains
had counted against them, so the burden is equal and fair
on both sides. But what that burden is, is just the onus
of developing a majority for any position, and the only
thing that counts against either side is the inability
to achieve just that.
FF: In case it wasn't clear, I was disagreeing with the formula above.
I was stating that the outcome should simply be Yes > No, Abstains
don't count ... see below for comments on your "sample size".
I think that you are perhaps not taking the time to think about how
this looks from the point of view of those who explicitly "abstain",
to put yourself in their shoes. I realize that the reasons for such
a vote are perhaps even more diverse than the reasons for any other
brand of vote, but I initially voted "abstain" on the IFF proposal --
changing it only after much further discussion partially satisfied
my reservations -- and so I know what some of those reasons can be.
I will therefore guess that many abstainers are thinking something
along the lines of "I do not want to stand in the way of other
people's projects, but I am just not enthusiastic enough yet
about this proposal to commit the whole group to working
on it, to the possible exclusion of considering other
avenues of approach". From the many long discussions
that we had prior to each vote, I am confident that
my guess is pretty close to sense of this subgroup.
Think what it feels like to particiapte in a long
an arduous debate and vote, and then have your
polite reservations, expressed in the form of
a "present and abstaining" vote, be accounted
in the end exactly as if you were not really
present at all.
With respect to these sorts of intentions among abstainers,
which I think deserve as much respect as any other intents,
there is yet another factor here. This is what many feel is
an order of misrepresentation that we have been subjected to.
We had long discussions before these votes, with many ardent
assurances from the Partisans, and I'm afraid that I cannot
help but include the Chair in this, that upping the status
of a document would be inclusive, and in no way exclusive
of continuing discussions on wider fronts, and a sense
of relent was only achieved when the offical titles
of the documents were demoted to the point where the
sense of the whole group felt itself secure in this.
But that is not how things have actually worked out,
and the Partisans of one proposal in particular have
used even the slightest increment in their status to
try and limit debate to picking the lint off of their
own mare's nest. So trust has become a factor in all
future warrants of what any vote will mean in practice.
In short, you do a disservice to those participant abstainers
to call their votes "non-votes", and this is besides the fact
that such a description is inaccurate. The ballot specified
the valid responses as being three. The voters are persons
who cast ballots. A majority is defined as 50% + 1 of the
total votes that were cast.
| majority. 3.a. a number greater than half of a total.
|
| majority rule. a political principle providing that a
| majority usually constituted by fifty percent plus one
| of an organized group will have the power to make
| decisions binding upon the whole.
|
| plurality. 3.a. a number greater than another.
| 3.b. an excess of votes over those
| cast for an opposing candidate.
| 3.c. a number of votes cast for a candidate
| in a contest of more than two candidates
| that is greater than the number cast for
| any other candidate but not more than half
| the total votes cast.
|
| Source: 'Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary'
JA: An explicit abstention does not count for or against the issue,
but it does count toward the overall validity of the vote, much
in the same way that the sample size N counts toward the validity
of an experiment or survey, and anyone who later argues for the
validity of the vote will use it in just this way, to say that
a total of N persons participated in the vote (or survey or
experiment). If N is very small, critics will have good
reason to dismiss the significance of the vote (etc.),
no matter what the outcome. To use the participation
of the abstainers toward the validity of the vote
without giving due consideration to their doubts
is a form of exploitation, pure and simple.
FF: Regarding the sample size, I'm in agreement
that the *response* to a ballot should be
of some reasonable level:
[1] Determination of Outcome: Yes > No
[2] Validity of Vote: Yes + No + Abstain >= Quorum Requirements
FF: Normally, IEEE uses the 50-50 rule for votes:
> 50% must respond and Yes vs. No (not including
abstains) must be > 50%. Later on in sponsor ballot
(a stronger requirement), the 75-75 rule is used to pass
the standard (>=75% must respond, and >=75% must vote Yes).
The 50-50 rule is [1] and [2] above, which also happens to
be Roberts.
The form of the ballot defines what qualifies as a vote.
A majority is defined as being > 50% of the votes cast.
I do not see how anybody could have guessed otherwise.
If the formulaters of the ballot wanted something else,
they should have written it differently, and explained
what the effect of an abstention would be. That in
itself is another good reason for having a re-vote.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤