RE: SUO: OpenCyc Motion
At 07:14 2002-06-04 -0400, Philip Jackson wrote:
>
> Jay makes a good point: there should be specified time frames for discussing
> and withdrawing or amending motions, in addition to specified time frames
> for voting on motions if they are not withdrawn. Even with such timeframes,
> not everyone will necessarily agree that a motion is well-stated (and they
> can vote against it if so) but at least this will ensure that people feel
> there is adequate time for discussion.
>
> The actual timeframe in this case was a little more than a week (5/23 -
> 6/1):
>
> 5/23/02 - draft motion from John DeOliveira is posted to SUO
> 5/25/02 - Jim Schoening reposts draft motion, requests suggested changes
> 5/25/02 - concerns about motion stated by Adam Pease
> 5/25/02 - concerns about motion stated by John Sowa
> 5/25/02 - concerns about motion stated by Patrick Cassidy
> 5/26/02 - concerns about motion stated by Jon Awbrey
> 5/26/02 - concerns about motion stated by John Sowa
> 5/31/02 - formal motion made by Pierluigi Miraglia; request for a second
> 6/1/02 - ballot announced for motion by Jim Schoening
> 6/1/02 - concerns about motion stated by Mike Pool
> 6/2/02 - concerns about motion stated by John Sowa
> 6/3/02 - Pierluigi Miraglia responds to Mike Pool, is open to amending
> motion
> 6/3/02 - Pierluigi Miraglia responds to John Sowa's post of 6/1/02
>
> So, I would agree with John Sowa and Jay that we should reopen discussion of
> Pierluigi's motion. I would recommend that we allow at least another 2 weeks
> to finalize the motion on OpenCyc.
Phil-
I had concerns, too, about the motion and expressed them on this list (i.e., what are the boundaries of the "documents?"). I didn't get answers that helped me understand the question. As Jim points out in a later E-mail, concerns were raised, but better wording was not suggested (or, possibly, not accepted by the maker of the motion).
Simply, I believe this is a poorly crafted motion ... no different than an poorly crafted motion in any other committee. For example, I expected that John DeOliveira would have responded to some of the concerns and he would have improved the motion, but this did not happen.
It is the responsibility of John and Pierluigi to improve the motion ... the chair (Jim) has the responsibility of putting the question in the proper form. In this case, the question is in the proper form, but the question isn't a "good" question.
As I see it, here's the outcome of a majority voting Yes: we accept what the question poses. For argument's sake, is that fixable via future motions? For example, it is possible to straighten out any concerns with CycML, CycL, etc.? If there were general agreement on how these things might be fixed (e.g., in the Cyc bundle: one is included, one is excluded, and something else is changed), then we might be able to fix things. But I can't tell from the discussion how we'd want to improve things.
So that's the exploring a Yes vote.
If the outcome didn't not establish a majority voting Yes, then the motion fails. Fortunately, we get to include ballot comments on the motion. Some of those comments might be "I would have voted Yes had CycML and CycL been proposed separately" or something along those lines. So reading through the comments, John and Pierluigi might get the idea that had they changed the motion, the motion might have passed..
So if the motion fails, they can try again with different wording, based on the comments from the ballot.
Sure, it would have been nice to get the right question the first time, but this kind of problem occurs occassionally in committees. My sense is that Jim did encourage John and Pierluigi to take in comments, but (1) some of the people commenting didn't suggest better wording (I suggested better wording to John and Pierluigi, but my suggestions were not accepted), and (2) it is really the responsibility of those making the motion to choose wording that suits them best (i.e., it's not the chair's responsibility, but the chair can help facilitate discussion).
Naturally, I'd like to make progress ... hopefully, there will be a way to move forward with the least amount of administrative stuff.
Rather than directing questions at Jim, I think you should be directing questions at John and Pierluigi: why didn't you improve your motion, based on the comments received prior to the ballot?
-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