SUO: RE: RE: Motion to Reconsider the vote on SUMO motion
Philip,
Regarding the prior guidance from the IEEE Parliamentarian, the message
from Lowell Johnson, CS VP Standards, directed us to work only through
proper channels. This means both Bob and I should not have gone to the
Parliamentarian and he should not have answered answered directly to us. In
other words, we should disregard his guidance.
As far as I'm concerned, and based on the practice of the other 800
IEEE standards working groups, our current method of computing majority
(YES's vs. No's) is correct. If anyone disagrees and wants to challenge
this, the proper action is to appeal. I believe strongly an appeal would
not win.
Jim Schoening
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Jackson
To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Sent: 9/29/01 10:32 AM
Subject: RE: RE: Motion to Reconsider the vote on SUMO motion
Jim,
I have probably lost track of how all these issues have developed, but
just
to doublecheck -- has the question of what is a majority been resolved
at
this point? I saw email indicating that the IEEE Parliamentarian said
YES
votes had to exceed NO + ABSTAIN votes to prevail... Then there was
email
saying the Parliamentarians decision may have been mistaken and was
going to
be reviewed...
If the Parliamentarian's decision stands, then could Bob Spillers say
that
the NO's are on the prevailing side, and so he is allowed to ask for a
reconsideration of the SUMO vote?
Speaking for myself, when I voted to ABSTAIN on SUMO I did not intend my
vote to be lumped with the NO's, and to be something that the YES votes
would have to overcome. If the IEEE Parliamentarian's original decision
stands, then I would be in favor of a third vote on SUMO, so that those
who
vote ABSTAIN are able to reconsider the impact of their votes.
In any case, the issue of what is a majority needs to be resolved before
any
more votes are conducted, on anything...
Thanks to everyone for their patience in working through these issues...
Phil Jackson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 7:45 AM
> To: 'Robert Grayson Spillers '; Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> Cc: '''Standard-Upper-Ontology ' ' '; 'Lowell G Johnson (E-mail) '
> Subject: SUO: RE: Motion to Reconsider the vote on SUMO motion
>
>
>
> Bob and SUO Working Group,
>
> Bob's appeal is not allowed for the following reason.
>
> Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th Edition) states:
"Chapter
> VIII; Section 24. Appeal; Paragraph 2(b): "when the chair rules on a
> question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions,
an
> appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed."
>
> Bob, I do not see any reasonable basis for a different
> ruling. If you
> do, please explain.
>
> Jim Schoening
> Chair,
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Grayson Spillers
> To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> Cc: ''Standard-Upper-Ontology ' '; Lowell G Johnson (E-mail)
> Sent: 9/28/01 11:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Motion to Reconsider the vote on SUMO motion
>
> Jim,
> Once again you have ruled against my motion to reconsider the SUMO
vote.
> I
> appeal the chair's decision to the members of the SUO.
>
> Bob
>
> "Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I" wrote:
>
> > Bob and SUO WG,
> >
> > I have been advised by Mr. Lowell Johnson, Computer Society
> (CS) VP
> > for Standards (and Chair of CS Standards Activity Board, our next
> higher
> > body, and the person to whom appeals are made), to not wait for
> further
> > guidance from IEEE, but to proceed with an attempt to resolve the
SUMO
> vote
> > issue at the Chair level.
> >
> > Therefore, I will backtrack to the point where I denied Bob
> > Spiller's motion to reconsider the SUMO vote. I had given two
> reasons, but
> > will withdraw the one regarding the timeliness of his motion. But
> this does
> > not change the outcome, as the other reason still causes the motion
to
> be
> > out of order.
> >
> > Background: On Aug 16, I posted the results of the SUMO vote
(YES=17;
> > NO=16; ABSTAIN=9) stating the motion passed. On Aug 17, Bob made the
> > following motion:
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Grayson Spillers
> > To: 'Standard-Upper-Ontology '
> > Sent: 8/18/01 12:07 AM
> > Subject: SUO: Motion to Reconsider the vote on SUMO motion
> >
> > Jim,
> > I move to reconsider the vote on the SUMO motion.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > =========End of Bob's message================
> >
> > My revised response is:
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > Your motion to reconsider the SUMO vote is out of order
> because you
> > voted NO on this ballot, which was not "with the prevailing side."
> Robert's
> > Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th Edition) states:
> >
> > "Chapter IX,
> > ~37. Reconsider
> > Reconsider--a motion of America origin--enables a
> majority
> > in an assembly, within a limited time and without notice, to bring
> back for
> > further consideration a motion which has already been voted on. The
> purpose
> > of reconsidering a vote is to permit correction of hasty,
ill-advised,
> or
> > erroneous action, or to take into account added information or a
> changed
> > situation that has developed since the taking of the vote.
> > To provide both usefulness and protection against
> abuse, the
> > motion to Reconsider has the following unique characteristics:
> > a) It can be made only by a member who voted with the
> prevailing
> > side. In other words, a reconsideration can be moved only by one
who
> voted
> > aye if the motion involved was adopted, or no if the motion was
lost.
> (In
> > standing and special committees, the motion to Reconsider can be
made
> by any
> > member who did not vote on the losing side--including one who did
not
> vote
> > at all."
> >
> >
> > Please respond with any questions or issues
> >
> > Jim Schoening
> > Chair, SUO WG
> <<Card for Robert Grayson Spillers>>
>