SUO: RE: IEEE legal opinion coming; John Sowa's motion

["Horn, Graham" <graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>]

Title: RE: IEEE legal opinion coming; John Sowa's motion

Dear all,
        .         I'm normally considered a bit of a stickler for precision of language and clarity of meaning. However, in this case I have to say I fail to see where any ambiguity lies in John's motion.

        .       The only problem I can see is if both options of this motion pass by their respective criteria, or both fail by them.

        .       If, as is likely, neither of these situations occur, then the matter is satisfactorily resolved. Otherwise we will need some form of arbitration.

        .       Personally, I support the concept of the voter not believing that there is sufficient evidence at the time of the vote to make a clear decision one way or the other.

        .       However, I would allow any motion to be reconsidered when additional experience and/or information can be reasonably argued to warrant a review.

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    

-----Original Message-----
From:   Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I [mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
Sent:   Tuesday, 9 October 2001 1:44
To:     'John F. Sowa'; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject:        SUO: IEEE legal opinion coming; John Sowa's motion

John and All,

I agree with the consensus that we could benefit from clearer guidance from IEEE.  I just talked to Lowell Johnson (CS VP Standards) who agreed to push harder for this.  As he stated in his message to SUO, this matter was taken up by the attorney for the IEEE Standards Association.  Lowell will make some calls tomorrow to push for a rapid and clear response, which should be within a week.

John, Your motion as stated is not clear enough for me to determine if it is in order.  You'll need to clearly state what YOU want to propose, not loosely refer to the guidance from the parliamentarian. You may want to wait for the aforementioned legal opinion to see if this changes anything.

Jim Schoening
-----Original Message-----
From:   John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
Sent:   Friday, October 05, 2001 7:57 PM
To:     Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
Cc:     Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject:        Motion to resolve the impasse

----snip-----------
John Sowas motioned:
I hereby submit the
following motion:

Considering the varying opinions about the validity of the SUMO vote and the narrow plurality for the affirmative, I move that a vote be taken on whether to accept the recommendations by either

• the IEEE parliamentarian, who said that a majority of all votes cast (including abstentions) is necessary for a decision,   

or

• the chair, who said that a plurality of votes (i.e., not counting abstentions) is sufficient for a decision.




-----Original Message-----
From:   John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
Sent:   Saturday, 6 October 2001 9:57
To:     Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
Cc:     Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject:        SUO: Motion to resolve the impasse




Jim Schoening wrote:
> If you honestly think any of the (relavent) guidance from the IEEE
> parliamentarian was correct (which I don't), then appeal.  If you
> are correct, my rulings will be overturned.  But until then, they
> stand.  That's the process.  Please follow it or drop this matter.

I am dismayed by Jim's attitude.  He has told us that he will ignore the guidance of the IEEE parliamentarian and that no other members' opinions are relevant to his decision.

I wouldn't consider either person to be infallible, but certainly the parliamentarian's opinions on this matter are worthy of consideration.  As many of the SUO voters had mentioned, there were no clear guidelines on how votes are to be counted.

In order to clear up this impasse and get on with the business of developing a standard for ontology, I hereby submit the following motion:

Considering the varying opinions about the validity of the SUMO vote and the narrow plurality for the affirmative, I move that a vote be taken on whether to accept the recommendations by either

• the IEEE parliamentarian, who said that a majority of all votes cast (including abstentions) is necessary for a decision,      or
• the chair, who said that a plurality of votes (i.e., not counting abstentions) is sufficient for a decision.

This resolution means that an abstention is not the same as a NO vote.  It merely means that the voter does not believe that there is sufficient evidence at the time of the vote to make a clear decision one way or the other.

In the case of SUMO, this resolution would imply that neither position, YES or NO, would have a majority, and no decision would be taken at present.  The SUMO proposal could still be resubmitted at a later date when more evidence of its progress, development, and utility becomes available.

Sincerely,

John Sowa