RE: SUO: OpenCyc Motion
Frank,
Thanks for your comments. In regards to your question:
> 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?
I haven't asked this question, because it appears to me that the timeframe
for discussion of the motion may have been too short to allow any changes to
be made to it, given the use of email for communication, and given the
constraints on people's time. People raised issues with the wording of the
ballot on 5/25, but it was not until 6/3, after the ballot had been issued,
that the authors of the motion were able to respond to these issues, and
indicated willingness to amend the wording. However, it was clear on 5/25
that there were issues with the wording and content of the motion.
Also, I have not really directed any questions at Jim, I have simply given a
recommendation that we should allow more time for discussion of the motion.
If we don't do that, then people can follow the course that you indicate is
open, which is to vote against the motion if they believe it is poorly
worded. Then if the motion fails, an amended motion can be resubmitted.
Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> Frank Farance
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:37 AM
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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 for voting on motions if they are not withdrawn.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
>