SUO: RE: Msg from Phil
Jim,
> Phil,
>
> Such a vote may make sense at some future point, but I see no reason
> to speculate. I don't think you can make a motion based on a future
> contingency. I suggest waiting until such a motion makes sense to you to
> immediatley conduct.
>
OK. You asked if anyone would make a motion for a vote, and I responded
positively, but I also had to note that voting prior to the BoG's reply to
your appeal could muddy the waters.
Please note that if and when BoG upholds their decision, at least two people
have already formally requested another vote in that eventuality.
Phil Jackson
> Jim Schoening
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Jackson [mailto:phil.jackson@computer.org]
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 7:01 AM
> To: James R CECOM DCSC4I Schoening
> Subject: FW: Further guidance from SAB
>
>
> Jim,
>
> resending...
>
> Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Jackson [mailto:phil.jackson@computer.org]
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 8:44 AM
> To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Cc: Lowell G Johnson (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Further guidance from SAB
>
>
> Jim,
>
> > I spoke to Lowell Johnson, IEEE Computer Society Standards Activity
> > Board Chair, regarding how to deal with the BoG directive during
> > the appeals
> > process.
> >
> > One thing that's clear is that the process followed by the BoG is a
> > big unknown, so it's anyone's guess how to properly deal with the
> > directive.
> > Was it the result of an informal appeal? If so, to what body would I or
> > anyone (if desired) appeal this decision? I appealed to the
> SAB (the next
> > higher level), but I'm sure they'll conclude they have no
> authority in the
> > matter, so I'll probably have to appeal next to the ISSS-SA BoG.
> > This might
> > seem futile (since it was their decision), but does offer hope,
> since this
> > time I'll have a chance to present my case.
> >
> > Also, the directive stated the SUMO vote failed and directed our
> > group to take another vote. Should I proceed with conducting
> this vote, or
> > wait to see if someone makes a motion for another vote? Lowell
> > and I agreed
> > Friday the BoG probably meant we should revote only if anyone wants to.
>
> I move that we have another vote, if and when your current, final
> appeal is
> concluded and the BoG continues to uphold their decision. I do
> this for two
> reasons: 1) the BoG said that there should be another vote. They
> did not add
> the proviso "if anyone wants to". 2) Some months ago when this issue was
> being discussed, I recommended that we get a second opinion from the BoG,
> and that if they held with their original advice, then we should conduct
> another vote.
>
> Those who previously voted "abstain" regarding SUMO did not know
> that their
> votes would be added to the "no" votes. If "abstains" are going to have
> their votes treated differently than they expected, then they should have
> the opportunity to reconsider and revote.
>
> If we do conduct another vote, then given the directive of the
> BoG, then it
> seems that the permissible way to count votes would be No > Yes + Abstain.
>
> I do not think we should have another vote as long as you are
> continuing to
> appeal the BoG, since in the unlikely event that the BoG reverses
> themselves, another vote would only muddy the waters....
>
> I would urge that you and Lowell try to conclude this appeals process as
> soon as possible, so that we can move on, one way or another.
> Until we have
> this resolved, it puts a cloud over counting votes on any motion.
>
> Incidentally, there is another motion on the table, which has
> been seconded,
> regarding a proposed request to KER. So far as I know, this other
> motion is
> still on the table, and has not been retracted.
>
> >
> > Another issue is the current state of the outcome of the SUMO vote.
> > I originally fealt that since the BoG directed a new vote, and
> I appealed,
> > that the state remained unchanged (i.e. it passed). Lowell and I
> > discussed
> > this on Friday and now agree that the action of the BoG changed
> the state
> > from 'Passed' to 'Failed.' If the appeal wins, this could
> revert back to
> > 'Passed,' but at the moment, it is considered to have failed.
> On the SUO
> > web site, we'll move the SUMO link from 'Starter Document' to 'Expert
> > Contributions.'
>
> Phil Jackson
>
>
>
>