Re: SUO: OpenCyc Motion
At 07:38 AM 6/4/2002 -0400, jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
>
>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.
>
Dear Jim:
I'm a little bit puzzled by this claim. Adam Pease, among others, stated
fairly explicit concerns about the wording of the draft ballot question.
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg08547.html
These suggestions appear to have been ignored. What am I missing?
best regards,
Mike Pool
>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 time: begin X, end Y. Then, unless the motion is withdrawn, a vote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/.
>
________________________________
Mike Pool
Information Extraction & Transport, Inc.
(703) 841-3500 x632
(703) 841-3501 Fax