RE: [Fwd: SUO: Gathering questions and issues with IEEE motion]
John,
Consensus needs to be achieved by the END of the standards
development process. There's nothing wrong with starting with a thin simple
majority. The reasons standards development is called a consensus building
process is that you often start without it.
As for a vote on SUMO, we had one, which I firmly believe was a
valid vote, so I must stand up against the unsubstantiated opinions of
others. We followed Robert's Rules of Order, as required by the CS SAB
P&Ps, and as all other working groups do. IEEE leaders and lawyers were
unaware of these P&Ps and this common practice when they issued their
outside-of-due-process directive. I'm appealing this directive in hopes
that someone in authority will stop and look at the facts.
This is not just about SUMO. IFF would probably also have failed,
though the directive was contradictory on whether non-votes count. If this
directive is enforced throughout IEEE, I'd expect half the working groups to
run into major problems. It would not impact the end game, for strong
consensus is needed at the end of the process, but there are lots and lots
of other aspects of the process that don't need consensus, where a simple
majority has worked just find for the past century.
Jim Schoening
-----Original Message-----
From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 10:58 AM
To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
Cc: 'Standard-Upper-Ontology '
Subject: Re: [Fwd: SUO: Gathering questions and issues with IEEE motion]
Jim,
There is a very simple need: to reduce the constant level of bickering.
> You ask why we just don't vote again? My answer is that we took a
> vote, which I believe was valid, so there is no need to take another one.
The goal of every standards project is to reach a consensus,
and any standard that does not have the overwhelming approval
of the committee is doomed.
A legal decision to force people to shut up leaves a very bad taste
in everybody's mouth -- winners, losers, and onlookers. The best and
simplest way to stop the wrangling is to ask the SUO members to voice
their opinion -- it is known as a vote.
It's so simple. It would cut the crap. And as I pointed out --
win, lose, or draw -- a vote would allow the SUMO developers to
continue their work as before. The only difference is that we would
put an end to the legal shenanigans.
John