Re: SUO: RE: Re: Gathering Questions (No vs. Abstain) -- resend
John,
Your interpretation of an abstention is similar to mine:
> I felt that an abstention was to serve as a notice of interest in the
> procedure with a willingness to go along with the plurality vote of the
> others.
> I see the need to vote as a requirement for showing interest in the process.
> I see a need for showing interest without committing to the decision, or, at
> least, accepting either decision.
But as many people have pointed out, an abstention is definitely
*not* equivalent to a no vote. It is essentially a statement that
you need further information before making an informed decision.
> I don't like the insinuation that an abstention becomes interpreted as a no
> vote.
That is not that intention of an abstention. Frank F. has incorrectly
tried to put that spin on it. Most of the abstainers were saying that
they did not have enough information about SUMO to give it an
unqualified acceptance or rejection.
Jim Schoening said that the idea of a candidate document was roughly
equivalent to the notion of a "working paper". But as many of us have
said, we would be happy with calling the SUMO document a working paper,
but that it was premature to call it a candidate for a standard.
Bottom line: An abstention is not equivalent to a no vote.
It is a request to defer a decision until the people who made
the proposal provide sufficient information to base a firm
decision one way or the other.
John