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

["Jay Halcomb" <jhalcomb8@attbi.com>]

The chief difficulty in resolving this e-mail voting issue about Robert's
Rules, I think, lies in how it is determined whether a quorum has been
established for a particular balloting, prior to or simultaneously with
counting the ballots. Robert's Rules were primarily aimed at in-person
meetings, although they do address balloting by mail.

Although I haven't recently reviewed the history, I think Jim Schoening did
follow a procedure for determining that a quorum had been attained in the
way he conducted the votes on SUMO and and SUO. The abstaining votes were in
effect used to show that the voters were addressing the issue -- that they
were aware of it, and hence that they were part of a quorum, i.e., were
participants in the particular e-mail 'meeting' that addressed a motion. (I
disagree, then, with the statement below that "It seems to me that
non-voters are most closely equivalent to non-attenders at a meeting"; I
think that abstaining on a vote by replying to a ballot, shows that one is
considering the issue.)

Once it has been determined that a quorum for a particular ballot has been
established, the utility of following Robert's Rules in voting lies in the
fact that only a majority of 'yes' over 'no' votes is needed to pass a
motion, with the abstentions not being counted, but only used in showing
that a quorum has (or has not been) established. This makes it easier for a
minority to get debate by bringing a motion, and thus makes movement
easier -- because a majority can't just silently sit out every proposal, but
has to actively vote 'no', and hence, one hopes, in that process has to
actually address/debate an issue.

Later in a standards process, one may wish to require a higher level of
consensus among the whole electorate, but I think that initially following
Robert's Rules (in requiring only a majority) encourages activity.

However (again, without having recently reviewed the history, mea culpa) I
also think that despite Jim's care, there may have been sufficient ambiguity
(or a lack of explicit group buy-in) about the voting process being used,
that there was room for folks to honestly come to different conclusions
about what process was being used -- or should be used.

My own view, then, is that the previous two votes were properly conducted by
a process I continue to endorse at this stage, although I do also understand
how the current disagreement arises. About who has the strictly legal
authority to authorize what at this point, I am less sure.

Jay

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE [mailto:Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 4:50 AM
> > To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: Gathering questions and issues with IEEE motion
> >
> >
> > Dear Jim,
> >
> > I would like to explore the issue of non-voters here.
> >
> > It seems to me that non-voters are most closely equivalent to
> > non-attenders at a meeting. If we adopted this convention then
> > the following consequences would flow:
> >
> > 1. We would need to establish a quorum for votes. If a quorum
> > was not reached, then the vote would fail for that reason alone.
> > A no vote therefore has some, but minimal impact. Do we have
> > a quorum specified for different types of vote?
> >
> > 2. If the current ruling from IEEE stands, we might want to
> > encourage those who truly wish to abstain simply not to vote,
> > since voting "abstain" is at least a semi-no vote.
> >
> > 3. This has implications for treatment of non-voters. The
> > current penalties would seem inappropriate.
> >
> > I guess the point I am trying to make is that whatever the
> > voting rules, with an intelligent group, people will try to
> > find a way to express their intent accurately. I guess
> > therefore that we should not get too excited about the ruling
> > that has been made. If we accept it, we at least have some
> > definitive rules, and we will know what it means when we
> > cast our votes.
> >
> > I know accepting this has the minor inconvenience of repeating
> > the vote on the SUMO, but that is an easier route than fighting
> > the hierarchy, and in any case, at some point this will need
> > to be done anyway to progress.
> >
> > Please give this your consideration as an alternative strategy.
> >
> >
> > Matthew West
> > Principal Consultant
> > Shell Information Technology International Limited
> > Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> >
> > Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
> > Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
> > Internet: http://www.shell.com
> >