Re: SUO: OpenCyc Motion
Jay,
I gave 3-weeks to cast ballots. Discussions may continue, and
are encouraged, during this period.
Had there been any suggested changes to the wording of the
ballot, I would have gladly given time, but there were none, so I
released it.
Jim
Discussions on the motion/ballot are still open.
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 20:47:50 -0700 "Jay Halcomb" <jhalcomb8@attbi.com>
writes:
>
> I side with John Sowa about this. Jim, you did not attach any
> precise time
> frames in your posts about the balloting on this issue. You said
> 'soon' and
> 'may', and (on May 22) 'Please don't cast any votes until the
> ballot
> question is posted, after which there will be *at least* 2-weeks to
> further
> discuss and cast ballots.' The ballon question was posted May 25.
>
> I think it is customary in a rigorous voting process to cite exact
> time
> frames up front, such as (Chair):
>
> 1) So-and-so has called for a vote upon the motion such-and-such.
>
> (Assuming seconding)
>
> 2) The chair will now entertain discussion of the motion for the
> period of
> time: begin X, end Y. Then, unless the motion is withdrawn, a vote
> shall be
> taken during time: begin X1, end Y1.
>
> It is particularly important to attach such time frames to votes
> conducted
> electronically as we do.
>
> Jay
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jim.s3@juno.com>
> To: <sowa@bestweb.net>; <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 19:14
> Subject: Re: SUO: OpenCyc Motion
>
>
> >
> > John,
> >
> > If you want to get technical, indeed Pierluigi did
> officially
> > make the motion a short period before the ballot was released.
> However,
> > John DeOliviera did make the original motion a couple weeks ago,
> and the
> > ballot question was posted for review giving plenty of time for
> review
> > and comment. There was little or no discussion, so I released
> the
> > ballot.
> >
> > Pierluigi's motion was only a technicality, since a
> non-voting
> > member (John DeOlivieri) can't make a motion.
> >
> > The real truth is that this motion didn't get much
> attention
> > until people were asked to vote on it, but that's not a reason to
> restart
> > a ballot. I could have left the motion and draft ballot open for
> another
> > week, but with probably no additional comments.
> >
> > Jim Schoening
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 21:32:07 -0400 "John F. Sowa"
> <sowa@bestweb.net>
> > writes:
> > > Jim,
> > >
> > > What do you mean "a period of discussion"?
> > >
> > > There was hardly any discussion at all. Pierluigi submitted
> the
> > > motion just before the weekend, we had two notes, and today the
> > > discussion is closed?
> > >
> > > Given the enormous amount of difficulty we have in getting any
> > > kind of vote reconsidered, this kind of action makes it
> impossible
> > > to make reasonable decisions in this forum.
> > >
> > > I hereby move that we reopen the discussion on Pierluigi's
> motion.
> > >
> > > John Sowa
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.