Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: SUO: Re: Gathering questions and issues with IEEE motion

Title: RE: SUO: Re: Gathering questions and issues with IEEE motion

Dear Frank,

Your analysis of "Abstain (no opinion)" having the same effect as "No" is quite correct.  However, our voting procedure is meant to be supporting a consensus-based standards effort (and I am well aware of your strong support and involvement with such efforts).  Thus, I propose that 50% >>approval<< is not unreasonable.

With your background, I am suprised that you have not been willing to observe that for an ISO New Work Item, a majority of the participating members (nations, in this case) must vote in favour (only one form of "Abstain" is possible but the participating members have an obligation to vote and, thus, the bottom line is always 100% of the membership;  two forms of abstinence allow us to cater for those who disappear into the ether ... and I can hear many doing so as this current debate rumbles on ;-)

If I may refine my terminology once again, how about "Abstain (no opinion)" = "Abstain (unpersuaded)"?

Cheers,
Tim.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Farance [mailto:frank@farance.com]
> Sent: 22 January 2002 17:53
> To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: SUO: Re: Gathering questions and issues with IEEE motion
>
>
>
> At 11:41 2002-01-22 -0500, John F. Sowa wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Following is Tim's extension to Matthew's suggestion:
> >
> >    Voting options = Yes, No, Abstain (no opinion), Abstain (not  
> > participating)
> >
> >    Active members (registered to continue membership) = Yes + No +
> >    Abstain (no opinion) + Abstain (not participating)
> >
> >    Voters = Yes + No + Abstain (no opinion)
> > ...
> >    Majority:  Yes / Voters > y%
>
> 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".
>
> Also, as Jim points out, there may be conflicting law and
> there is conflicts/inconsistencies in the IEEE response ...
> not to mention that Robert's says that Abstains are non-votes
> (they are responses, but not votes) and are not included in
> determining the outcome.  Furthermore, Computer Society P&Ps
> conflict with your above suggestion.
>
> The obvious solution, which we've all come to the same
> solution N times is:
>
>         Yes > No
>
> means a vote passes and Abstains don't count.
>
> > I hereby move that Tim King's extension with this clarification
> > be adopted for all future votes to be taken by the SUO group.
>
> FYI, procedural stuff requires 2/3 approval.
>
> And, because IEEE has made for a good number of conflicts /
> incosistencies in their current response (which is why some
> people are complaining), we won't be able to take *any* votes
> until this is all clarified (Jim has been trying to get
> clarification).
>
> The simplest solution is to have IEEE look at this issue
> again because they've been terribly confused in their
> thinking in their latest response.
>
> -FF
> ______________________________________________________________
> _________
> Frank Farance, Farance Inc.     T: +1 212 486 4700   F: +1
> 212 759 1605
> mailto:frank@farance.com        http://farance.com
> Standards, products, services for the Global Information
> Infrastructure
>



*************************************************
COMPANY NOTICE
This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and
privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you
are not the intended recipient (or authorised to receive information for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies
of this message. If this e-mail contains attachments, you should ensure they are checked for viruses before opening them.
*************************************************
This e-mail originates from LSC GROUP LIMITED. Registered in
England & Wales No 2275471
Registered Office: Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1 4SG
*************************************************